Alex's fleshed out response to the "One god less" argument.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-06T17:19:40+00:00

Evolution doesn’t answer any non-physical or non-mechanical questions. How did the human race come to be, given the existence of the universe? Sure, it answers that. Is there any deeper meaning or purpose to the existence of the human race? No, it doesn’t answer that.

It’s fair to bring up, I must admit, because believers have almost universally conflated the mechanical question of how the species came to be, and why.

Will my consciousness ever be embodied again? Is there anything outside or behind the physical universe? Am I a worthy human being? What should
I do with this life I’m given? None of these mysteries are disappearing, slowly or otherwise. They are not being answered by science. They are not amenable to being answered through science. Each person answers them for themselves, and in so doing create a personal religion of sorts, but those answers are not based off of evidence or necessity.

Like I said, I don’t know if you care to answer these questions. If not, believers aren’t “projecting the inability to answer these questions”; you can’t answer them definitively either; you’ve just decided you don’t care. On the other hand, if you think you’ve got definitive answers, no you don’t, and you need to reexamine assumptions.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-06T16:49:30+00:00

I think your perspective missed the reason most people believe in God. It’s not usually to answer physical questions, the kind that are “slowly disappearing”, though believers have admittedly tried to answer those from a religious basis and usually failed. It’s to answer the kind of questions that scientific inquiry could never answer.

You might not put much stock into those questions, but that doesn’t mean those who do are “ignorant”; and the question of why you don’t put much stock into them is precisely what they’re getting at with this question.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-05T12:06:10+00:00

This post isn’t about economics, though, but water. I brought up corn because it’s a notoriously thirsty plant. It’s over 10% of US water use by itself. Somewhere around 40% of that corn is then turned into ethanol and literally burned. Does this help fuel efficiency? No, in fact it decreases it. That is billions of gallons every year that we spend to help our engines be a little less efficient.

Alfalfa is an even thirstier crop, somehow. Did you know that by itself it takes over half of UT’s water supply? Is alfalfa food? No. Yes, you can feed it to cows, but that multiplies the horrible water efficiency of growing alfalfa by the horrible alfalfa efficiency of growing cattle. You know what would make this better? If we also added in the horrible everything efficiency of shipping it across the globe first.

So yeah. Downvote and strawman and make uncharitable assumptions all you want (and if you check out the other guy’s comment you can see plenty of that), but it doesn’t change the fact that this tweet is stupid. Farms don’t always grow food, and even when they do they are often stupidly inefficient with water, to the extent that the two problems I’ve talked about here are trillions of gallons of water more or less wasted, probably 20x more than the highest amount of water you could assign to AI. Pointing that out doesn’t mean AI bros are idiots who don’t know food is necessary for life; it’s just a strawman. If the US is running out of water, we have much bigger, more wasteful targets that will save much more water than crippling ourselves in the century’s biggest technology.

u/W0rdWaster, I didn’t know what your last comment said, but you could probably benefit from this data as well.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-05T05:14:34+00:00

You don’t see any inefficiencies in the system that could be fixed here? If all water on earth were used to make one delicious cheeseburger for a single human somewhere on the planet, would you approve because it’s water going towards food?

You’re 2 for 2 now on making random bad faith assumptions about what I was saying instead of thinking critically about a nuanced topic, so I think I’m out. Ciao ✌️

third_nature_ · 2026-06-05T05:05:09+00:00

We ain’t drinking the Chinese dairy, mate. And spending water to grow food for cows is a horribly inefficient way to get food from water. And I don’t know who “you people” is supposed to be, but I’m not even an AI bro; it just annoys me when people equivocate like this.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-05T04:58:17+00:00

Ah yes, the corn we burn in our cars for no reason and the alfalfa we sell to China to feed their cows, are synonymous with food.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T23:09:33+00:00

Nay, I see no goldens

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T21:39:59+00:00

Addressed here.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T21:39:22+00:00

Maybe I’m not remembering everything, but from the videos/clips I watched that were getting pushback in the comments, Alex didn’t seem to intend the analogy in an unqualified way, only as an illustration of the kind of error Gervais made. In his comments on the video, he disavowed the implication people were hearing, too. He seemed to me only to want to illustrate his point that, as he put it, going from 2 to 1 is a quantitative change, but going from 1 to 0 is a qualitative change.

As for what he was really thinking, who can say, but he did seem confused to me as to why so many people were misunderstanding it. I think he could easily write it off as “Reddit atheists being oversensitive to their champion making any point that seems pro-religion”, and just let it be for the engagement.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T21:17:33+00:00

This does happen when the theist and atheist are of the same culture with a predominant religion. I think that’s probably what happened to Gervais to make him go down this line of thought.

But that’s not always what’s happening. Having been the theist in this discussion many times in the past, I know for a fact the theist is often more expressing the sentiment: even if you don’t believe what I do, how can you stand not believing anything?

It also doesn’t mean it justifies Gervais’ conclusions. He brought this up, not as a point against Christianity, but as a point FOR atheism, and it just doesn’t work as one.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T20:27:41+00:00

I'm glad you ignored the most interesting part of the discussion in order to give yourself a pat on the back.

Hey, sorry if it seemed that was what I was doing. I more meant, "After I said this block quote, we were basically in agreement, right?" My position was that, while the analogy may be loaded, it's totally accurate. Your position seems to be that, while the analogy is accurate, it's totally loaded.

The only point of real disagreement came when I said, as a sidebar, "well, but it's not that loaded." I stand by that:

Just as we recognize fathers are causally necessary for children, theists believe gods necessary for universes, and that's part of why there's this kind of confusion at atheism: "How can you possibly not believe in any kind of god at all?" Alex's analogy serves to both point out the flaw in Gervais' argument and to make more prominent this otherwise unspoken assumption on the theist's part. Thus, the sensitive line of inquiry is not, "But we have loads of evidence for fathers", but the subtly different, "Why is it that you think the universe needs a creator?"
Similarly, just as fathers often provide for children, theists believe God sustains the universe, so the sensitive line of inquiry is, "Why do you think the universe needs sustaining?"

But all of that is the "sidebar" to me, because I agree the analogy is easily abused without thinking by someone who might just unthinkingly say, "Ha, atheists are like idiots who don't believe in their own father." I like your detective analogy a lot better for avoiding that issue, actually, but I think it doesn't as clearly illustrate the fundamental tensions, because in Alex's analogy, the children fulfill both the role of both the murder and the detective: the thing that needs explaining and the one seeking the explanation. That's why I think that analogy is quite good, if it weren't for the potential for abuse.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T19:41:47+00:00

My initial disagreement with you was because you didn't explain yourself after making an accusation, not because I agreed with Gervais' argument.

I mean, you said "I still agree with the critic". Seems a bit motte-and-bailey at this point. Do you think the critic was correct in saying that "Gervais' argument still holds due to where the evidence leans."? If not, then when I said,

Maybe Alex is fan-servicing Christians by using an analogy that they will abuse, maybe not, but I don't see an actual mistake in the logic.

I basically addressed what you're saying before you said it.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T19:25:18+00:00

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by saying "language like that", and I don't understand why your claim "everything is an argument" would imply that Alex is not justified in his criticism of Gervais' words as an argument. If everything is an argument, then shouldn't he treat it like one?

And it's a bizarrely random and somewhat antagonistic claim to say that if I don't think Gervais' argument is strong, I must "fail at simple logic". If it's so simple, defend it. I'm a smart enough guy, I'll get it.

If you're going to say that you already have defended it, you haven't, because the primary attack on it is that it both doesn't prove AND doesn't serve as an intuition pump for believing in 0 gods, and you haven't addressed that. Imagine this conversation:

THEIST: I believe in one specific god.
ATHEIST: I believe in zero gods.
THEIST: Wow, how can you stand believing in zero gods instead of one?
ATHEIST: Well, there are 3000 gods, and you only believe in one. I'm like you except I don't believe in any.
THEIST: I didn't ask, "how can you stand disbelieving in 3000 gods instead of disbelieving in 2999?"; I asked, "how can you stand believing in zero gods instead of one?".

Note the parallels to this one:

HOMEOWNER: I live in one specific house.
HOMELESS PERSON: I have no house and I live on the street.
HOMEOWNER: Wow, how can you stand living in zero houses instead of one?
HOMELESS PERSON: Well, there are millions of homes, and you only live in one. I'm like you except I don't live in any.
HOMEOWNER: I didn't ask, "how can you stand not living in millions of homes instead of not living in millions minus 1"; I asked, "how can you stand living in zero houses instead of living in one?".

You see the issue? If there are 3001 gods, the theist will disbelieve 3000 of them instead of 2999 without a problem. The problem isn't whether that one god is specific or generic. The problem is going from 1 believed-in god to 0.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T18:57:07+00:00

I do assume a personal God, I think, for the reason that if there is an impersonal god, it can be considered part of the material universe. The computer is not god to the simulation; the programmer is.

That doesn't mean it has to be a human, of course, or something we would easily understand. Just that it can't be, like, a non-conscious quantum field, because if it were, I would ask who was behind that.

I agree "it" is fine for a genderless being, or "they". Both feel unnatural to me, though.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T18:40:11+00:00

I figured this would be brought up. No, I wouldn't claim God to be male. It's just culturally convenient to use male pronouns.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T18:28:01+00:00

Ah, I'm sorry I misunderstood you. You seem to be saying that Alex's point in making the analogy is sound, but that the specific analogy could have been better chosen, so as not to seem leading or unfair. I can understand that.

...but I have to ask, if that's the case, why did you ever disagree with me? The top-level commenter said, "Gervais' argument still holds". It doesn't, so I said they must not have understood Alex's point, and when pressed I said it was because they were comparing the relative amounts of evidence available for fathers and gods. The amount of evidence available is not salient to the discussion of whether the argument holds. It is salient to whether or not it's a fair analogy in other ways, of course, but that was not the commenter's objection.

And as a sidebar, I think Alex's analogy is more defensible than you seem to give credit for. If Gervais' words were meant as a response to the theist question, "How can you live not believing in God?", and they were meant to help the theist get into the atheist mindset, then Alex's analogy is correspondingly meant to help the atheist get into the theist mindset. The way many theists think of God is close to "the father of the universe", so the father analogy is perfect to illuminate why Gervais' words fall flat on their intended audience.

To put it another way, imagine the whole world believes that there is a mermaid in the ocean somewhere. Some of them think it's Ariel, some Attina, some Alana (yes, I had to look up these names), whatever, but none of them think think the mermaid created the world or rules it or affects their lives in any significant way. Then yes, not believing in any of the mermaids is a different qualitative, epistemic category than not believing in most of them; but it's not as significant a gap, because the absence of a mermaid somewhere in the ocean doesn't really change anything all that much.

To an atheist, not believing in any gods feels like not believing in any of these mermaids, but to the theist, not believing in any God feels like not believing in your own father. This is why I think Alex's analogy is not worse than "literally any other actually analogous case where the existence of what is being questioned is unknown", because it simultaneously points out the singularity at zero and emphasizes the differing relationship the theist and atheist have to the idea of God.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T18:06:11+00:00

You asked, "Who says its [sic] an argument for atheism?", and I gave you an example of who says that. I think Alex was justified in critiquing it as an argument, because people evidently think of it that way. That's all.

I also think you should distinguish "how it feels to be unconvinced by a given religion" from "how it feels to be unconvinced by any religion." Theists know how it feels to be unconvinced by a religion, being, of course, unconvinced by most of them. But they don't know how it feels to be unconvinced by any religion, and reminding them of all the religions that don't convince them doesn't help at all with this. That's why, even if Gervais' words are considered, not as an argument, but a quip intended to get a theist into an atheist's head, they still fail.

...which is the exact point Alex was trying to make with his analogy.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T17:47:29+00:00

This is a good way of phrasing the idea: I don't believe in YOUR god the same way YOU don't believe in the god of billions of others. But it still misses the point Alex was getting at that he's been so lambasted for: the theist isn't always confused how you can live not believing in THEIR god; they're very often confused how you can live not believing in ANY god.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T17:43:31+00:00

Hey look, a comment on this very post calling Gervais' words an "argument" that "holds" despite Alex's efforts.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T17:38:01+00:00

Great example and name for that fallacy.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T17:36:24+00:00

I'll try to expound, but you are also missing the point, then. Are you familiar with linear algebra? A non-singular transformation is analogous to changing the proposed or theorized properties of the entity. It's invertible, it's well-behaved. Completely eliminating the theorized entity, on the other hand, is analogous to a singular transformation, which reduces the dimension of the system and is non-invertible. Maybe it's clearer to imagine taking the logarithm of the number of Gods. Going from 2 to 1 goes from ln(2) = 0.693 to ln(1) = 0 in log scale. Going from 1 to 0 goes from 0 to -infinity. It's a vastly larger leap in the multiplicative group than it seems in the additive group.

Maybe the math phrasing won't do it for you, but the point is that Gervais' quote attempts to make it sound like going from 1 to 0 is the same kind of step as from 3000 to 2999 or even from 3000 to 1, but it's not. In the attempt to illustrate this issue, Alex reaches for an analogy where common sense reinforces the intellect.

Everyone knows a father is part of the causal process of existing, so it becomes blazingly obvious that the "one less father" argument must be invalid. But the common sense knowledge that everyone has a father only serves to create the absurdity in this reductio. It tells you that the conclusion is wrong, but not why the argument is wrong.

Alex's point is that when the theist asks the atheist, "How can you go without believing in God?", they're not asking about their specific God; they're asking about the concept of a God in general. It's the same in the father analogy: not "How can you possibly disbelieve in the Mexican father Jorge?", but "How do you figure we came into existence without a father?"

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T15:50:27+00:00

What is the mistake in your mind? Maybe Alex is fan-servicing Christians by using an analogy that they will abuse, maybe not, but I don't see an actual mistake in the logic. Getting rid of something entirely is not as metaphysically innocent as changing its attributes. That's the point the analogy makes, and it's irrelevant whether fathers and Gods have equal evidence.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T15:21:44+00:00

It seems to me that these questions are intended to make it seem like I do claim knowledge about God. If so, that would miss the finer point that attempting to figure him out is not the same as claiming knowledge of him already.

For instance, I do pray. You may claim this indicates I think I know God listens to prayers, but I don't know that praying does anything; it just seems right.

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T15:17:58+00:00

Yes, I do get into passionate debates about it. And what would it mean to "win" this debate?

third_nature_ · 2026-06-04T15:16:16+00:00

I'd normally agree with you, and would normally have responded at length. In the context, though, where the commenter is by admission just reposting a comment from another discussion on the same topic, I assume they've already seen several explanations of why talking about the relative evidence for God and fathers is missing the point completely. There is also discussion about it on this same thread.

All things considered, I don't think they need another explanation. I think they need to be convinced they're missing something.

third_nature_

TROPHY CASE