God did it" is a pretty simple explanation, only one assumption, do you really want to invoke Occam's razor?
"God" is defined as a being with infinite aspects (omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, etc) and is an infinite assumption.
God did it" is a pretty simple explanation, only one assumption, do you really want to invoke Occam's razor?
"God" is defined as a being with infinite aspects (omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, etc) and is an infinite assumption.
Welcome to 2026 debating. Ever since Kirk got shot, the right has lost their filter that they used for the left out of courteously
It does seem like a lot of people are letting their hate flags fly.
Don't care; it's true.
I Imagine you crashing into an abortion procedure related to an incest, rape, ectopic, or (none of your business) pregnancy ignorantly screaming about the 'dehumanization of unborn children'. Is it difficult to maintain that level of outrage?
Tell me you have the same level of concern for born children, please.
A conversation requiring the light touch of nuance presented by the debate equivalent of a sledgehammer...
"Unborn children" is a politically and emotionally loaded term. Is there "dehumanization" without the term?
SatanLucy wrote:
OMG, you're a Trump!
No, I have long fingers, and you know what that means.
Gloves with long fingers?
Sidewalker wrote:
SkepticalOne wrote:
It doesnt help to summarize the thread absent responses to your arguments. Ive explained why your understanding is mistaken. Knowledge of existence doesnt thwart free will. If it did, then ...no one tell the Christians what Jesus did to them! 😉
"Just because she's tied up in the basement, doesn't mean she doesn't love me" - RemyBrown
Deflection.
It doesnt help to summarize the thread absent responses to your arguments. Ive explained why your understanding is mistaken. Knowledge of existence doesnt thwart free will. If it did, then ...no one tell the Christians what Jesus did to them! 😉
I encourage you to do your own research. There is undeniably a lot of prosyletizing dressed up as science (see link above), but that does not give an accurate accounting of the of the data.
Here is a study comparing Western and Japanese NDEs. Western folks tend to view their experience through a religious lense while Japanese do not. Japanese do not personify aspects of their experience. Ie. There might be a bright light, but it doesnt have personality, etc.
Sidewalker wrote:
SkepticalOne wrote:
That's a non-sequitur and a nonsense statement.
Not at all. It nullifies the claim that no one believes in a perfectly loving god and OP is trying to 'define god out of existence'.
Oh, so it's one of those magical nonsense statements, like an incantation that creates logic out of thin air?
Cool, please explain how that works.
You claimed no one believes in a god like in the OP. You were presented with an obvious undeniable group of believers in such a god. What's the issue?
Shoresy wrote:
You agree with all 7? Don't you feel the slightest urge to question a single one?
No argument found.
More proof [...]
Children's hospitals.
linate wrote:
Step 1: Remove filters in Reflecting Pool because Obama put them in.
Step 2: Give your criminal neighbor who runs "Greenwater Services" a $20 million no-bid contract to paint the pool.
Step 3: Fill the pool with water from the Potomac River, the phosphates from which cause algae blooms.
Step 4: Freshly sealed pool and extreme heat result in a super scum event
Step 5: Direct National Park Service to dump hydrogen peroxide into the pool which causes the paint to peel.
Step 6: Deploy US National Guard to stop people from taking photos of the swamp as a perfect metaphor for the administration.
Step 7: Blame someone else.
Agreed.
That's a non-sequitur and a nonsense statement.
Not at all. It nullifies the claim that no one believes in a perfectly loving god and OP is trying to 'define god out of existence'.
https://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Compatible-Deathbed-Near-Death-Experiences-ebook/dp/B0CFYCWKHB
Oh, I stand corrected! Its an ebook on Amazon aimed at 15 year olds written by an apologist with a Master of Divinity. Perhaps you should check your own obvious biases rather than question mine.
As a skeptic how do you view this science? Do you deny science simply because it contradicts your worldview?
What scientific journal is this study published in? It's Facebook or Youtube, isnt it? 😆
This does not follow simply because a perfectly loving God would allow man's free agency, not withdraw it to jealously force our belief.
Love and obedience are not forced by knowledge of existence nor is agency thwarted by it.
What if uncertainty about god was necessary to fully engage with him? What if we as beings can only ever encounter love at its fullest, or whatever other value and meaning and purpose you have, by combining faith and free will to will your self into a voluntary self willed creation?
What if engaging with uncertainty is the path to the next life or highest good? What if faith is putting meat on the bones of engaging god and uncertainty?
What if ...not that? No offense, but it sounds like you're grasping at straws. I would appreciate less fluff and more evidence/reason based responses.
I think you are working backwards, you are starting with your conclusion and then defining the subject accordingly.
I assumed it was understood this is not my argument. Shellenberg introduced it 30 years ago or so.
If your argument is that an “omnibenevolent, omnipotent god” would not want human beings to have free will,
First off, knowing someone exists doesnt force love or obedience. Secondly, if knowledge shapes the path of free will (which I believe it does) then the absence of knowledge does that too. The free will defense cuts both ways.
If a person that has an NDE interprets the experience as evidence of the God of their understanding, I don’t think they have any obligation to discount other interpretations or other experiences, as you said, it’s heavily influenced by their cultural and religious background.
Are you arguing NDEs are personal revelations? If so, even assuming what they experienced is 100% real, it's not evidence for me or anyone else. That one person is the only one who experienced their NDE.
OK, and your conclusion is heavily influenced by their cultural and religious background.
What?
I think how it is interpreted is a matter of the individual's prior metaphysical assumptions, different assumptions, not necessarily fewer assumptions, so Occam’s razor isn’t applicable.
Occam's razor doesnt lose its edge if the unnecessary assumptions and unproven entities were accepted long ago.
This is still just the flip side of the Ontological Argument, the Ontological Argument tries to "define" God into existence, the Divine Hiddenness Argument tries to "define" God out of existence.
I am certain folks arguing "God is love" are not trying to define their god out of existence.
Some places want to only hire women because men are seen as more likely to be unsafe. Is that unfair? Cause it has to do with probability that someone won't perform the essential functions of their job.
What are you talking about here? Do you have specifics?
Like, if someone convinced you we should favor men or women for a specific job (could be niche), would you say that in a specific case we were violating gender equality, or would you say that because it's reasonable it doesn't violate gender equality at all?
Do you have something specific in mind?
The principle you're saying is whether the care is "essential," but if that differs based on gender, why could other essential rights not vary based on gender?
Your portrayal of essential care as suggestive of different rights for men and women does not follow. If men and women both have access to the same level of care (life sustaining, preventitive care, basic well-being management, etc.) then they are being treated equally.
So, what your proof comes down to is, “If you were God, you’d make it so everyone believes in you, everyone does not believe in God, therefore God must not exist”.
A perfectly loving god would desire a personal relationship with humanity. Relationships require all sides to know each other. It stands to reason, such a god would want humanity to know it exists.
I saw where this was going in my initial reply, “nobody believes in the God you don’t believe in”.
No one believes in an omnibenevolent, omnipotent god? That's certainly not true.
Yes, an NDE is an experience that people report having, as such, of course the reports “are heavily influenced by cultural and religious backgrounds and vary widely”. That is the case with all experiences, isn’t it?
What I mean is that the experiences vary widely. If your argument is that NDEs are evidence for a particular deity, then you would need to discount many other deities reprsented in the expeirences. You would also need to discount experiences where no deity is represented.
You aren’t challenging the fact that these people actually had the near-death-experience, are you?
No, why would I? I dont consider it to be evidence of the supernatural though. It could be individuals are glimpsing many, many other realms, but it seems much more likely to be the result of a brain in some sort of trama. Occams razor favors the latter.
For example, being offered a job isn't a natural right. However, if someone started discriminating when hiring based on sex or race or other protected criteria, we would treat that as a rights violation.
I'd say that is appropriate. Equal employment laws are based on natural rights. Denying work based on identity is a violation of a person's fundamental freedom and the right to sustain their life.
But there are cases when discriminating makes sense, like not letting a blind person drive a car.
I think youre equivocating a bit. "Descrimination" is the unjust, unfair treatment of a person because of characteristics like race, disability, etc. It is not unfair to disqualify an applicant that cannot perform the essential functions of a job.
I'm also not sure universal healthcare is a natural right, it depends on what the system actually achieves and if it actually improves health outcomes. It can be a good thing if designed well, but the financial costs are not irrelevant since people are taxed to fund it.
I would argue universal healthcare would be closely tied to natural rights, but that is another debate. Regardless, whether it is viewed as a natural right or a government provided entitlement, I dont think you can reasonably justify disallowing crucial care because bodies with ovaries cost more to care for. If government is going to be involved, then it should handle essential care for everyone. After all, women are taxpayers too.
I've not seen an answer to my question.
Okay - which groups' rights are impermanent
in your eyes? If you're going to be discriminatory, you might as well say it with your full throat.
There is not a single right on the planet that doesn't have practical exceptions. Nothing is absolute, not equality and certainly not rights.
That's a strawman. You're arguing against something I havent said. I said rights aren't determined by accountants meaning the rights of a group can't be excepted for financial costs. Do you disagree?
But if there can be reasonable exceptions to equal rights, then everyone believes in equal rights, they just have reasonable exceptions (according to their definition of reasonable.)
If rights mean anything at all, there can be no "reasonable exception" to equal rights.
I mean, resources cost money, so it makes sense to give access to some resources only to the people that need them. That's gonna be lopsided in cases of pregnancy, periods, testicular cancer, etc. So there are obvious exceptions.
Rights aren't determined by accountants. Human rights are freedoms and protections that belong to every person by virtue of being human. You're getting bogged down in things that are irrelevant.
It's not about applying the principle though, it's people disagreeing about what it means in the first place.
I do not agree this is an accurate depiction of the disputes youve described.
I think believing groups are "equal" is probably the most fraught because you have to find a way of measuring/comparing the groups and then somehow it comes out to a tie.
There is no need to quantify, compare, or contrast body stats to make gender equality (GE) a reality.
Also men and women probably shouldn't have access to the same resources; women need tampons and support for pregnancy more than men do, because of obvious differences.
No one is arguing men and women should both have access to care only women need or vice versa. Thats a silly take. The argument is that men and women should both have access to the same freedoms, the same access to resources, and the same access to opportunities - not that they should necessarily have the same resources or the same opportunities. Eg. Medical care for men and women are different, but access to that care can be the same for men and women.
Well I think some people are clearly more dignified than others.
The dignity MLK believed in wasnt something that was earned or lost. ...I am a little perplexed why you would favor MLK when you argue against the universal equality he was known and admired for.
A man doesn't need paid leave for menstrual cramps, for example, nor does he require access to those privileges or rights.
A woman doesnt need medical care for a prostrate exam, but both men and women need care. This isnt complicated...
Except even people who agree on gender equality disagree on what this means in practice.
As is the norm in all things human.
At which point, the principal of equality ceases to be useful for identifying the best policy.
Nonsense. Confusion over the best way to apply a principle does not negate the principle.
And it gets even harder to pin down when it comes to belief that genders are equal, because there are clearly differences in aggregate measures between genders.
And that means men and women shouldn't have access to the same rights, resources, or opportunities? That does not follow.
I don't even think men are all equal to each other. MLK was a lot better than Hitler.
I dont think MLK would have agreed such comparisons were appropriate. He believed all humans were equal in dignity.