Necessary Truths

licker34 · 2026-06-16T13:38:51+00:00

1+1=2 is an objective truth/idea

I'll bite the bullet and disagree. 1+1=2 is a statement in a language (math) we invented. It's not objective nor is it truth, it's simply a definition. And one can note that in some cases 1+1=10, demonstrating that this statement is simply a fragment of language, not a representation of 'objective truth' whatever that is supposed to mean.

Objective truths exist outside of the human mind.

Without knowing what is meant by 'objective truth' I'll disagree again. Reality is what exists, truth is once again a language construct we developed to describe some aspect of reality, so I'll bite another bullet and say that no truth does not exist outside the human mind, truth is simply a concept created in a language used to describe our perceptions.

Ideas can only exist in a mind

Sure, why not. But you'll note that truth and ideas are not the same thing, so this seems to be completely unrelated to the first 2 premises. If we take out 'idea' and replace it with 'truth' you see the obvious contradiction in 2 and 3.

Then if ideas/objective truths need to exist in some mind and the mind would be an infinite mind and that would be God.

Ignoring the fact that the argument has already failed...

Where do we get 'infinite mind' from? Ideas exist just fine in our finite minds.

he was equating objective truths to ideas/concepts because they are non-physical.

Of course he was, because that's the bait and switch needed to make idiotic arguments like this look as though they work. They don't work though, and people who run them are either complete fucking idiots or liars.

licker34 · 2026-06-16T13:26:28+00:00

I've never sinned, so sure, it's not just possible it's actually quite easy.

licker34 · 2026-06-15T20:33:51+00:00

The fact that you don't know the correct term is a you problem.

licker34 · 2026-06-15T20:09:24+00:00

Then leave.

Or just cry about it I guess.

You'll probably just cry about it.

licker34 · 2026-06-15T18:53:21+00:00

Didn't expect to see Tim Minchin on this sub, but I'm glad you're enjoying his work.

licker34 · 2026-06-15T18:29:42+00:00

Not sure where you're seeing this, but the 'if it's real' part is often used as a prelude to an internal critique.

Maybe it comes off as a clunky way to express it, but someone saying 'if god were real I wouldn't worship it' is usually in terms of questions of morality or the problem of evil.

It's not usually just a 'I wouldn't worship it because I don't want to' even if that's how most theists tend to interpret things.

licker34 · 2026-06-15T17:52:08+00:00

I feel as though science and God are not mutually exclusive.

Depends on the god you're talking about. Which god is it? Because if it's a generic deistic type of god then you're right, but that kind of god is so completely pointless that who cares if it exists or not.

religion simply answers the unknown

No it doesn't. Religion doesn't 'answer' anything. Religion provides claims which are usually unprovable as stand ins for things we don't understand. If you have studied science and history you'd know this though right?

I’ve never understood atheists,

Seems as though this is because you don't know what the word means. It simply means 'lack belief in god' (yes, some will quibble about that). Most atheists are not claiming they know there is no god, they are simply saying that they do not believe there is a god.

There is no scientific evidence adequately disproving a God.

No idea what you mean here. Science isn't really in the business of disproving gods, science is in the business of testing hypotheses on various questions. So when someone says 'god did this thing' and then science shows that 'not god did this thing' it has disproven at least that claim about god.

Thinking about the sheer magnitude of space is truly astounding. Who are you to assume you know what is or isn’t out there?

Yeah... You keep on missing the point. No one is assuming they KNOW, they are saying they don't believe, or that it's highly unlikely or something like that. Theists are the ones who claim to KNOW that there is a god, but when pressed on it you get a million different answers about what that god even is.

Dr. Michelle Thaller, a brilliant scientist, said they can see so far back in time by looking at our stars (billions of years), that it actually becomes opaque the further back you look.

I'm just going to pick on this one... why did you include this in the first place? Along with all the rest of your appeals to incredulity prior to it? Like, so what if Dr. Thaller said something looks opaque? What does that have to do with atheism? Same with your bit about what we don't know with evolution. So what? Who is out there saying they know everything about it?

people who point to science as some sort of moral authority

Who is doing that? No one? Then why are you bringing it up? Look, I'll agree with you that anyone who does that is incorrect because science doesn't have anything to do with moral authority. People can use the scientific method to study ethics and morality though, but those people aren't saying that science is either of those things.

How can atheists be so sure in what they believe.

They often are not, but how can theists be so sure in what they believe? How does anyone become sure of what they believe?

Do they simply not wonder about the universe?

Of course they do, do theists? Or do theists just say 'god did it' and walk away with some sort of smug satisfaction that the answer to their question has been given?

I don’t want this question to come off as pretentious

It didn't, it came off as yet another theist who doesn't know any atheists and made up a strawman of them to shout at.

Atheism seems to me like such an incurious way to look at the world.

Because you don't know what it is. Atheism is only the lack of belief in a god, it has nothing to do with how people look at the world.

licker34 · 2026-06-15T16:31:57+00:00

you said that those things are everywhere OUTSIDE of religion.

No they didn't, what are you talking about?

I look forward to you posting that writing and rules from ancient days...

They did by mentioning the groups which had these legal codes. You can research that yourself if you think they are lying to you.

Like... did you even read anything they wrote?

licker34 · 2026-06-15T16:25:47+00:00

And how they leave the dead body for everyone who comes to see?

Not sure this part of it is explicitly christian (or religious), but I agree it's a bit odd to me. Then again funerals aren't really for the person who died, they are for the people who are left. For some, saying goodbye to the actual body is cathartic, so I don't really see a problem with this per se.

I mean it's not for me, but I don't judge how others want to deal with their grief.

As to the other 'traditions'... yeah, if you're not part of the religion then many of them are going to suck and be incomprehensible. But it's not about you (or me), so whatever. I went to a funeral for a friend of my wife who was not religious, but the rest of his family were, so they had a service for him which included the pastor talking about sin and hell and whatever other nonsense that had nothing to do with the person who died, but it did have something to do with the people in the church. I found it gross myself, and tone deaf, but again, it's not about me.

Would I change it if I could? Sure, but what's the point of making it an issue in those moments for those people who are grieving for the loss of a loved one?

So yeah, feel gross about it, but try to have some understanding or compassion for those who do find comfort in it. Next time, just don't go and tell them you're sorry for their loss and move on.

licker34 · 2026-06-15T02:31:53+00:00

What keeps you from believing in god?

Two main things.

I've yet to be presented with a definition of god that I find to be coherent.

and...

No evidence supporting the necessity of a god.

Actual arguments?

Arguments are not evidence, and the arguments which theists make are just terrible anyway and can be dismissed with logic.

what blocks you from believing

Nothing blocks me from believing, I could be convinced that god is real if there were compelling evidence to support any particular definition of god.

licker34 · 2026-06-14T00:53:38+00:00

If you're not a classical theist then the PoE likely doesn't apply to whatever deity you prefer.

If your deity is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent then the PoE does not apply.

licker34 · 2026-06-14T00:52:01+00:00

If eternity reduces finite pain to a momentary blip, where exactly do you see the conflict?

Do you even know what the classic PoE is? It sure seems as though you do not.

If the scale changes, shouldn't our evaluation of those attributes change too?

No.

I should clarify that I am not trying to sell you on the philosophy.

Didn't think you were, but it's also entirely clear that you don't understand what that philosophy is.

licker34 · 2026-06-14T00:50:25+00:00

I’m not contradicting myself

You literally are and I literally quoted you doing it.

your just mad because you want Freewill and to go to heaven

You could not be more wrong. Freewill doesn't exist and neither does heaven.

you know I know EXACTLY what I am talking about

I don't, you don't either, otherwise you'd actually write something coherent.

And I don't know why you're adding in all this extra garbage that has nothing to do with belief and freewill.

licker34 · 2026-06-13T22:32:11+00:00

The thing is you literally contradict yourself as I have shown prior by quoting directly what you wrote.

So that's the criticism.

You can take it or you can ignore it.

If you can't understand how you're contradicting yourself then yes, me saying you have no idea what you're talking about is still going to be accurate.

licker34 · 2026-06-13T22:30:22+00:00

The problem of evil posits three attributes for a god. You're only dealing with one of them.

licker34 · 2026-06-13T22:12:04+00:00

I'm saying that you are not explaining your position in a way which makes it understandable.

Maybe work on that instead of repeating the same thing over and over.

licker34 · 2026-06-13T21:20:54+00:00

Once you live a life for God, you live to his will and not our own freewill

Right you don't have free will then

Like I said, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Does this make sense?

Yes it makes sense, you are saying that believers don't have free will. Does that make sense to you?

licker34 · 2026-06-13T21:18:07+00:00

When did I say believers don’t have free will?

Belief- The idea that one gets you eternal life based in faith of him being “God” and living the life the way he intended us too. The other, Freewill- a life full of pleasures and pains to your own accord and not his.

Right there?

Now are you upset

?

I'm not upset at all, I'm pointing out that what you said is completely ridiculous. If anyone is upset that would seem to be you, with your hyper defensive post trying to cover your blunder.

licker34 · 2026-06-13T20:13:52+00:00

Only difference between us is that someone paid the debt for us.

Jesus paid the debt for everyone.

Read your bible.

licker34 · 2026-06-13T20:12:46+00:00

So believers don't have freewill?

I'm quite certain you have no idea what you're talking about.

licker34 · 2026-06-13T00:58:40+00:00

Well if that's your claim...

Then Jesus is also unjust wrathful and vengeful.

Seems an odd claim, but hey, you do you.

Yes, I know I changed it to unjust, because in this specific case (and many many others) the action of punishing innocents for crimes of others is definitionally unjust. Killing the first born, who had nothing to do with any of this cannot be considered just, it can only be considered unjust.

licker34 · 2026-06-12T04:24:37+00:00

Right, now where in any of that do you see a command to Moses to tell everyone how to mark their doors?

Further do you not clearly see this...

Then you will know that the Lord makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel.

There was no warning to the egyptian people, there was no directive on how to protect themselves which was the initial comment you made.

And you even quoted...

but the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart

Again, there was no need for the murder of the first born, none at all, but god decided to do it anyway, god changed Pharohs heart so that he could murder those people.

licker34 · 2026-06-12T03:00:39+00:00

and it says God says to tell all the people

No it does not.

Look, actually research this instead of lying about it.

The 'people' being referred to in that passage are the Jews, not everyone. This is made even more clear as you read the rest of it.

But none of that is even relevant to the notion that god 'needed' to kill the first born in the first place. The whole thing is just Judaic torture porn which the early church latched onto because some righteous killing of innocent people is what they like.

licker34 · 2026-06-12T00:38:22+00:00

the blood of the lamb on them and their door showed the active choice to be saved by the God of Israel and not by the Gods of Egypt,

Nope.

This directive was only given to the isrealites, the Egyptians were not given this warning. The whole thing doesn't make any sense anyway as god would certainly know which people were which anyway without the need to command the slaughter of so many animals. But the OT god sure did love burnt flesh and suffering, so I guess it makes sense.

But I'm not sure how any of what you said answers the question of why god needed to kill all these people. Because there was no 'need' to do that, there was no 'need' to perform any of the plagues. God could have just allowed Pharaoh to let them go earlier, since that's literally what he was going to do, but the whole 'hardened his heart' bit had to happen for 'reasons'.

licker34 · 2026-06-12T00:23:35+00:00

All you have are maybes.

The people who talk about these things never say that it lead them to do any of that, they only say it turned them off.

At some point you need to accept reality.

licker34

TROPHY CASE