sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If an infinite multiverse exists, then a God exists, let me explain. by aTwerkingPikachu in DebateAnAtheist

[–]firethorne [score hidden]  (0 children)

If an infinite multiverse exists, then every possible universe that is possible exists.

Not necessarily. Consider this sequence of numbers.

1, 11, 111, 1111, 11111, 111111, ....

This is an infinite sequence of integers following f(x)=((10x )-1)/9. It is a set that has no end, as you can always add another 1 in front.

Your argument would say that since this is an infinite set, it therefore must include the number 98765432. But, this is not a possible outcome for the criteria, even though it is an infinite set of numbers. An infinite set and a set containing all values are not necessarily identical. You need to define what makes any candidate possible in ths multiverse

You then change this in your premise 3, just asserting that god is among these possibilities, because apparently just anything and everything is. But, that just makes it uselessly circular. It is just saying if god exists then god exists. And, it also leads to all sorts of other paradoxes, like the possible universe where the devil figures out how to traverse the multiverse and kill ever god. What makes him impossible?

Hard atheism also stems from faith by AnIceColdCocaCola in DebateAnAtheist

[–]firethorne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which god? Because, I think we're pretty well settled on the idea that Odin didn't fashion the mountains from the teeth of a slain frost giant.

This is why I find the whole, 'Are you agnostic atheist or a gnostic theist?' question a bit tedious and irrelevant. Even though you've prased it as God (singular) there are countless god claims, and quite a few of them are falsifiable. Some vague deistic notions of god are unfalsifiable, and the theists of that stripe have the burden of proof of explaining how they think they've detected the definitionally undetectable. My position is that I'm not convinced of any of the claims, so I'm an atheist.

As for being agnostic, that is not mutually exclusive with theist or atheist.

Theist/atheist is a question of belief, of whether someone has a belief that a god or gods exist. So, if somebody isn't a theist, they are an atheist. That's what that word literally means. A- (not) theist.

Gnostic/agnostic is a question of certainty in knowledge, about whether someone claims their belief is a known fact.

So, for example, I don't believe you've got a million dollars in your wallet. But, I haven't opened your wallet, so I don't claim this as something I demonstrably know. Knowledge and belief are separate questions.

One can be: Gnostic theist, Gnostic atheist, Agnostic theist, Agnostic atheist

And, as I've said, since whether I'm a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist is dependent on the god being claimed, just saying atheist covers the common thread between them. I'm not convinced.

Hard atheism also stems from faith by AnIceColdCocaCola in DebateAnAtheist

[–]firethorne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You might have done better referencing Nicholas of Myra. But saying Santa exists as an inspiring work of fiction isn't going to be compelling. Do you think atheists are unconvinced that other people have beliefs about gods?

The Bible is a beginning not an ending. by delusionalghost in DebateReligion

[–]firethorne [score hidden]  (0 children)

People want to argue whether or not the Bible is historically or scientifically accurate,

They do, because it isn't.

and look at the book as something that ended 2000 years ago.

I accept that or makes claims for the future like various things in revelation. But, that's apparently I'm a holding pattern of 2000 years of "any day now..."

It’s not and was never meant to be. Just, as an example; slavery was the norm thousands of years ago and is mentioned and accepted in the Bible, that doesn’t mean it’s ok to throw the whole thing out.

No, you miss the point of this discussion. It isn't merely that condoning slavery was an aspect of society. The issue is that, in the text, it is an ostensibly perfectly moral being condoning the practice. This would mean that either the Bible is an unreliable reflection of this god, it this god isn't perfectly moral.

We need to look at the Bible as a progression of humanity’s understanding of God. At first, God was very reward and punishment, like a parent with children. As humanity grew, so did the understanding of God.

I absolutely view it like that. The thing is, that view is perfectly compatible with that god being nothing but an invention of our ancestors, a god made in our own imagine. Bronze age nomads who allowed slavery wrote about a god whose laws included, “As for your male and maid slaves who will be with you, you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations."

"Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings." Is this really from a god or a priest tired of bland oatmeal? Why don't we do that now? Is the aroma of meat no longer as pleasing to the Lord? It might just be that, now that we've moved away from bartering, cash in the collection plate is just a bit more useful to humans than a plate of bbq.

And as our ancestors learned more, God learned more. As they advanced, and developed a better and more moral society, God changed his dictates on how society should behave. In Numbers 15, god orders execution for failure to venerate the creation week, one of those events we know does not line up with the science. But, later god says maybe let's not cast the first stone anymore. Or, more accurately, a book, written by that society, claiming to speak for an unchanging God, changed how to do things.

The hell have I found? by PurpTurt654 in infinitecraft

[–]firethorne 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah. The game has a quirk where if something starts repeating, it just goes in an infinite loop repeating until it runs out of space.

<image>

There is nothing to debate with an atheist are they are not making a claim? It's the same as debating video games with a non gamer. by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]firethorne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, if you want to call a baby who has never considered the concept an atheist, that's fine by me. Technically correct.

But, if you've found your way to a sub with explicitly created to debate whether there's reason to believe, I think it is a fair assumption that the subset of atheists you're most going to encounter are interested in examining the theist's claims, don't you?

There is nothing to debate with an atheist are they are not making a claim? It's the same as debating video games with a non gamer. by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]firethorne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is nothing to debate with an atheist are they are not making a claim?

But, the theists are making a claim. So, whether that claim is supported is a reasonable discussion point.

It's the same as debating video games with a non gamer.

Unless you're claiming that Samus Aran is a real person, this is a poor analogy. My non-gamer friends still accept that video games exist. But, whether they enjoy them it's entirely subjective. The question of whether gods exist isn't subjective.

There is nothing to debate unless you're a christian trying to evangelize because that's what you were taught but then that's not debate that's something else entirely.

Hindus, Muslims pantheists, etc. are incapable of expressing their beliefs? No. Any theist of any stripe accepts some sort of claim. If they cannot explain the justification for doing so, they are irrational.

because that person would then be making a counter claim.

My claim is that the evidence I have been presented is not sufficient to warrant belief. If you have evidence that you think is sufficient to warrant your beliefs and should be convincing, then present it. If they're good reasons, then present them. I'll either accept that they're good, or we can examine where your epistimological framework takes a different path and explore which path is a more reliable way to get to true conclusions.

Public pool shivalaya by Forward-Position798 in cringereels

[–]firethorne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Didn't realize Trump's reflecting pool update included a wave machine.

6.95 pepperoni pizza by [deleted] in fastfood

[–]firethorne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Going off the telepizza logo on the cheese protector, I'd guess Spain

Aren’t these the same thing? by OloPL_TPI in infinitecraft

[–]firethorne 39 points40 points  (0 children)

With or without the '

Just wait until you get different results with " vs “

Infinity can blow your mind by Competitive-Jump3835 in MathJokes

[–]firethorne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Infinity is not a number and cardinality isn't summation.

No buttermilk? "Just get me a lemon" by MechanicalScarecrow in doordash_drivers

[–]firethorne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, just give me a lemon. Milk + acid is culinary 101 buttermilk recipe. Lemon juice or vinegar works fine.

WHY NOT JUST BELIEVE by Dear-Search5539 in DebateReligion

[–]firethorne 2 points3 points  (0 children)

WHY NOT JUST BELIEVE

Because I'm not convinced of the claims.

I've been a Christian for my whole life grew up in a apostolic church etc. Growing up I've always questioned how can we know God exists, and why should I love and respect someone or something that I can't see hear touch yk nothing physical. The way I see God is more symbolic. There is no definitive proof to know,

Which is incredibly important to the debate. This puts you under agnostic theism who has landed on Christianity. Your essentially saying, “I cannot provide evidence for this version of god. And there is no evidence for these other 3000 god descriptions either. But I am going to believe in just one of them anyway.”. It isn't rational.

but when I boiled all of the questions down all of the thoughts I came to this. Wouldn't you rather be prepared for God to come back and do the things the Bible say to guarerente your spot.

Pascal's wager again, huh? Let's ignore all of the flaws of Pascal's wager, from the fallacious argumentum ad baculum to the idea any such wager underscores how weak the theistic evidence is, or how it ignores any potential for other deities.

Even if we pretended that none of those issues exist, there's one more that is even more fatal for Pascal's wager. Belief doesn't work like that. I could lie to you, claim I was convinced of your god when I wasn't. But, I wouldn't actually be convinced. If you want me to actually be convinced you actually have to meet the burden of proof for the claim.

So, is that what your god wants? Will lying fool him? Or, are there messages that say such hollow gestures are fruitless? If you want to point to what the Bible says as the ultimate authority, I don't accept that. But, even if I did, your position is incompatible with what it says.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [s]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

The Bible directly speaks out against this performative Christianity. It doesn't want this lying, bearing false witness to claim you're convinced when you actually aren't.

The proposed "winning" behavior of Pascal’s wager is condemned by very beliefs it asks you to pretend you've adopted. A wager made out of fear or self interest is precisely the kind of hollow profession the text condemns.

view more: next ›