The Best Argument Against the Existence of God

[Super Universe]

The most convincing argument against the existence of God (excluding deistic god concepts) that I can think of is the existence of pastors, priests, popes, scribes, and missionaries. No one learns about God directly from God, but instead, it has to come through intermediaries. Why would an omnipotent god who wants a "relationship" with humans never talk to them directly and only speak through intermediaries? Why would he wait for missionaries to tell people about his existence instead of revealing himself directly to them? Why would he need humans to write his "word" for him? He wouldn't. A real god wouldn't need intermediaries to speak to people (one of the most inefficient and unconvincing methods possible), he'd do it himself. The fact that humans are necessary to spread the knowledge of gods is very strong evidence that the gods don't exist, and in fact, are human-made constructs.

No one learns about God directly from God but it has to come through intermediaries? The intermediaries claim that only they can interpret the religious books because they need you to obey them and give them money. God never appointed any of them.

Why would God not reveal Himself to the people directly? Because that would violate the reason for the universe to exist. God wants free will, not children who know they are being watched by a strict parent.

Why would God need humans to write His word for Him? God doesn't need humans. A very large asteroid could destroy the earth tomorrow and the universe would go on normally. Some humans wrote books and claimed they were from God.

Humans spreading what they think is God's word is just humans doing what humans do. They want everyone to be like them. They don't like it when others are different.

 

[epronovost]

Why would God not reveal Himself to the people directly? Because that would violate the reason for the universe to exist. God wants free will, not children who know they are being watched by a strict parent.

This is some fallacious comparison and equivocation. If your argument were to be true, people with strict parents would have no free will which is patently absurd. Knowing and being in a relationship with someone or something doesn't suppress willfulness by definition. Even from a religious standpoint this is absurd, since all religion posit the existence of some sort of "sin" concept; that is someone who knows god(s) and knows it's desire and teachings, but still break them. This entire defense is absurd even if one were to delude himself or herself into "knowing and having a relationship with god(s)".

 

[Super Universe]

This is some fallacious comparison and equivocation. If your argument were to be true, people with strict parents would have no free will which is patently absurd. Knowing and being in a relationship with someone or something doesn't suppress willfulness by definition. Even from a religious standpoint this is absurd, since all religion posit the existence of some sort of "sin" concept; that is someone who knows god(s) and knows it's desire and teachings, but still break them. This entire defense is absurd even if one were to delude himself or herself into "knowing and having a relationship with god(s)".

Why is there much more crime in the cities and almost no crime in rural areas?

Do children steal from the cookie jar when the parents are in the kitchen or when the parents are in the other room watching teleivsion?

If you actually knew someone with very strict parents then you would know that they have no free will, unless you consider breathing to be free will.

 

[epronovost]

Why is there much more crime in the cities and almost no crime in rural areas?

Increased population density, lower level of social cohesion, higher level of law enforcement and reports, higher level of polution, higher level of wealth disparity.

Do children steal from the cookie jar when the parents are in the kitchen or when the parents are in the other room watching teleivsion?

Number two, unless they want to challenge an authority or try to weasle a privilege.

If you actually knew someone with very strict parents then you would know that they have no free will, unless you consider breathing to be free will.

I actually know several. They all had free will and often disobeyed and faced punishment. I actually know someone who was tortured by her parents. She has free will.

Aslo, why would a present and known deity be strict to the point of abusiveness? You are assuming that all relationships must be authoritarian by design which is also absurd considering the existence of multiple types of relationships.

 

[Super Universe]

Increased population density, lower level of social cohesion, higher level of law enforcement and reports, higher level of polution, higher level of wealth disparity.



Number two, unless they want to challenge an authority or try to weasle a privilege.



I actually know several. They all had free will and often disobeyed and faced punishment. I actually know someone who was tortured by her parents. She has free will.

Aslo, why would a present and known deity be strict to the point of abusiveness? You are assuming that all relationships must be authoritarian by design which is also absurd considering the existence of multiple types of relationships.

You forgot one - Everyone knows everyone so you are less likely to get away with it.

You know someone who was tortured by her parents but she still had free will? Right, to you breathing is free will.

Why would a present and known deity be strict to the point of abusiveness? God can't be present for you or anyone else nor does He want to hear about your day or give you what you want.

God has the most important job of all, creating the universe every second of every day. If He stops it all ceases to exist.

 

[epronovost]

You forgot one - Everyone knows everyone so you are less likely to get away with it.

No that's actually part of the "social cohesion" category since this is indeed a factor to lower criminality.

You know someone who was tortured by her parents but she still had free will? Right, to you breathing is free will.

You are equivocating freedom of action to freedom of will. Breathing is an action that may or may not be willful. Free will is the ability to think, feel, imagine, etc. The strictest of all parents cannot control ALL your thoughts ALL the times. They can only attempt to modulate your thinking processes by altering your environment or through indoctrination, but neither of these are perfect tools. She had free will because no matter what they did to her, she could still dream for something better and she did built her brighter days.

Why would a present and known deity be strict to the point of abusiveness? God can't be present for you or anyone else nor does He want to hear about your day or give you what you want.

God has the most important job of all, creating the universe every second of every day. If He stops it all ceases to exist.

That's a new argument. You moved from God doesn't want to be known to preserve "free will" to God cannot or doesn't want to be known and be in a relationship with people because he is too busy and important for such tiny things. Do you abandon your first argument and move on to the second? The second one is logically consistent and believable unlike the first one.

 

[Super Universe]

No that's actually part of the "social cohesion" category since this is indeed a factor to lower criminality.



You are equivocating freedom of action to freedom of will. Breathing is an action that may or may not be willful. Free will is the ability to think, feel, imagine, etc. The strictest of all parents cannot control ALL your thoughts ALL the times. They can only attempt to modulate your thinking processes by altering your environment or through indoctrination, but neither of these are perfect tools. She had free will because no matter what they did to her, she could still dream for something better and she did built her brighter days.



That's a new argument. You moved from God doesn't want to be known to preserve "free will" to God cannot or doesn't want to be known and be in a relationship with people because he is too busy and important for such tiny things. Do you abandon your first argument and move on to the second? The second one is logically consistent and believable unlike the first one.

Only being able to think, feel, and imagine is enough free will for anybody? Maybe for you.

When I tell you something about God I don't tell you everything at one time because that post would never end. That doesn't mean I changed or left out relevant facts, you know that every point is not all of the information about a subject. If I tell you that the sky is blue that doesn't mean that it doesn't change to black at night.

You atheists always try to use logic as if you are purely logical beings.

I didn't say that God cannot make Himself known, just that when you know it changes you. One of the important aspects of free will is being a child of God and having the ability to choose to not believe in God. God is not going to force you to believe in Him.

 

[epronovost]

Only being able to think, feel, and imagine is enough free will for anybody? Maybe for you.

That's all that will can be. Will is thoughts, desires, dreams, aspiration, etc. Will can lead to action, but not by necessity. I wish I could fly, but I cannot fly. I'm free to imagine what it would be to fly, dream about flying, but I will never be able to fly. There is thus a difference between my will and my actions both in terms of limitations and products.

When I tell you something about God I don't tell you everything at one time because that post would never end. That doesn't mean I changed or left out relevant facts, you know that every point is not all of the information about a subject. If I tell you that the sky is blue that doesn't mean that it doesn't change to black at night.

Be that as it may. You did shift from one obviously weak and bad argument to a stronger one supporting the same position. Something completely true can be supported by bad, illogical arguments. Pointing out that an argument is bad doesn't de facto means the conclusion is false, only that this argument cannot be used as evidence or proof of sound reasonning to support the conclusion.

You atheists always try to use logic as if you are purely logical beings.

We are talking argument here. It's not about your vices and virtues. It's about the strength of your argument of which you are not even the original creator either (not that this is a problem).

I didn't say that God cannot make Himself known, just that when you know it changes you. One of the important aspects of free will is being a child of God and having the ability to choose to not believe in God. God is not going to force you to believe in Him.

This is, again, another argument based on other assumptions than two other ones you have introduced so far. I would say this third one is weaker than the second, but stronger than the first since it's not obviously wrong though it's weaker than the second because it relies on two premise that are extremely hard if not impossible to prove, the first one being on the nature of God and the second on the nature of human psyche.

 

[Super Universe]

That's all that will can be. Will is thoughts, desires, dreams, aspiration, etc. Will can lead to action, but not by necessity. I wish I could fly, but I cannot fly. I'm free to imagine what it would be to fly, dream about flying, but I will never be able to fly. There is thus a difference between my will and my actions both in terms of limitations and products.



Be that as it may. You did shift from one obviously weak and bad argument to a stronger one supporting the same position. Something completely true can be supported by bad, illogical arguments. Pointing out that an argument is bad doesn't de facto means the conclusion is false, only that this argument cannot be used as evidence or proof of sound reasonning to support the conclusion.



We are talking argument here. It's not about your vices and virtues. It's about the strength of your argument of which you are not even the original creator either (not that this is a problem).



This is, again, another argument based on other assumptions than two other ones you have introduced so far. I would say this third one is weaker than the second, but stronger than the first since it's not obviously wrong though it's weaker than the second because it relies on two premise that are extremely hard if not impossible to prove, the first one being on the nature of God and the second on the nature of human psyche.

A being can only have ideas? Ideas are fine but you have to experiment to learn. You can't sit under a tree and realize the truth of the universe.

You wish you could fly but you cannot fly? The Wright brothers might disagree with you on that. Jesus said that if you knew who you really were you could ask a mountain to move and it would move but I will tell you that even a galaxy would move.

My argument shifted? Does one post the same thing over and over and over again? How boring would that be?

The typical atheist explanation of logic always avoids the fact that logic has absolutely nothing to do with truth so it's pretty much useless. Logic is about validity and invalidity and classifying arguments but an invalid argument isn't necessarily false, it's just invalid and a valid argument is not necessarily true, it's just valid.

Example: All men wear pink hats.

Tom is a man

Therefore Tom wears pink hats.

This is valid because the conclusion agrees with the premise but it's false because all men do not wear pink hats so, as a debate tactic, it's a waste of time, unless you don't care about truth and just want to constantly deflect and avoid really discussing the topic.

Also, classifying an argument is a waste of time. An Ad Hominem can be true. So what is the point in calling an argument an "Ad Hominem" except to try and sound smart and confuse the other person. Unlike you, I took a logic class in college and I get so tired of having to explain logic to atheists over and over again.

You made a statement that I am assuming that God could make Himself known, please provide your evidence for this statement that I am assuming this. Or don't you have any evidence? Let me guess, you don't, right?

 

[epronovost]

A being can only have ideas?

I never made such claim. I claimed that there is a difference between will and actions. Obviously we can do both. Free will isn't freedom of action and vice versa.

Ideas are fine but you have to experiment to learn. You can't sit under a tree and realize the truth of the universe.

That doesn't seem to have any sort of bearing on the conversation which is about your arguments to solve the problem of divine hiddeness.

You wish you could fly but you cannot fly? The Wright brothers might disagree with you on that.

Obviously the Wright brothers cannot fly. The planes they build do and they fly in the planes. Obviously, I meant my example about the dream of flight to be literal unassisted by vehicle form of flight. I think you should have understood that from the get go.

Jesus said that if you knew who you really were you could ask a mountain to move and it would move but I will tell you that even a galaxy would move.

That seems like a completely ridiculous claim that has absolutely no bearing on the subject of the conversation. Keep going like that and I will think you are trying to obfuscate the issues I'm trying to raise about your "argument from free will".

My argument shifted? Does one post the same thing over and over and over again? How boring would that be?

It's also extremely boring and impolite when someone makes a criticism about a certain subject you brought to constantly shift the subject and ignore the criticism. In my opinion, you made a bad argument and I demonstrated how and why. People make bad argument all the time. That's not such a big issue. Instead of addressing my criticism and offering counter-arguments or conceading that indeed it's a bad argument. You are putting forward more and more arguments of different nature. My criticism isn't about whatever conclusion you arrived to. It's about the quality of one of your arguments, the first one. I did recognised that your second argument was sound. I made no pronouncement

The typical atheist explanation of logic always avoids the fact that logic has absolutely nothing to do with truth so it's pretty much useless. Logic is about validity and invalidity and classifying arguments but an invalid argument isn't necessarily false, it's just invalid and a valid argument is not necessarily true, it's just valid.

Example: All men wear pink hats.

Tom is a man

Therefore Tom wears pink hats.

This is valid because the conclusion agrees with the premise but it's false because all men do not wear pink hats so, as a debate tactic, it's a waste of time, unless you don't care about truth and just want to constantly deflect and avoid really discussing the topic.

I have presented that fact in my last post. I'll even quote myself:

Pointing out that an argument is bad doesn't de facto means the conclusion is false, only that this argument cannot be used as evidence or proof of sound reasonning to support the conclusion.

In resumé, my critique isn't about and never was toward your conclusion that there is such a thing as a god(s). It's about one of your arguments and its quality. I'm trying to tell you that one of your arguments is very bad and that you should stop using it to try to solve a philosophical problem.

 

[Super Universe]

I never made such claim. I claimed that there is a difference between will and actions. Obviously we can do both. Free will isn't freedom of action and vice versa.



That doesn't seem to have any sort of bearing on the conversation which is about your arguments to solve the problem of divine hiddeness.



Obviously the Wright brothers cannot fly. The planes they build do and they fly in the planes. Obviously, I meant my example about the dream of flight to be literal unassisted by vehicle form of flight. I think you should have understood that from the get go.



That seems like a completely ridiculous claim that has absolutely no bearing on the subject of the conversation. Keep going like that and I will think you are trying to obfuscate the issues I'm trying to raise about your "argument from free will".



It's also extremely boring and impolite when someone makes a criticism about a certain subject you brought to constantly shift the subject and ignore the criticism. In my opinion, you made a bad argument and I demonstrated how and why. People make bad argument all the time. That's not such a big issue. Instead of addressing my criticism and offering counter-arguments or conceading that indeed it's a bad argument. You are putting forward more and more arguments of different nature. My criticism isn't about whatever conclusion you arrived to. It's about the quality of one of your arguments, the first one. I did recognised that your second argument was sound. I made no pronouncement



I have presented that fact in my last post. I'll even quote myself:

Pointing out that an argument is bad doesn't de facto means the conclusion is false, only that this argument cannot be used as evidence or proof of sound reasonning to support the conclusion.

In resumé, my critique isn't about and never was toward your conclusion that there is such a thing as a god(s). It's about one of your arguments and its quality. I'm trying to tell you that one of your arguments is very bad and that you should stop using it to try to solve a philosophical problem.

There is no problem with divine hiddeness. It's working as it's supposed to. Your problem is not a problem for the universe. You're not supposed to know so you don't know.

The Wright brothers can't fly unassisted? Nothing can.

Jesus claim that if you knew who you were you could ask a mountain to move is ridiculous? You have made a claim, do you have any evidence to support your claim?

You're raising issues about my argument from free will? You're arguing about how to argue because you don't have any evidence to prove any of your extraordinary claims.

I didn't shift the subject, I provided other evidence. And I didn't avoid your criticism, I just pointed out that your criticism is not with the material but instead an attempt to classify it as if that makes it wrong. Logic has nothing to do with right and wrong, it's only used to deflect, deflect, deflect.

Why use logic if it does not lead to the truth? Because you don't know what the truth is so that's all you can do, deflect, deflect, deflect.

I should stop using a certain argument? Straw man.

 

[epronovost]

There is no problem with divine hiddeness. It's working as it's supposed to. Your problem is not a problem for the universe. You're not supposed to know so you don't know.

It seems that you don't know or don't understand what "the problem of divine hiddeness" means. It's a philosophical problem. It doesn't mean it's an actual problem in the real world. It rests on a bunch of assumptions and has its own limitation. You might also be familiar with "the problem of evil" or "the problem of divine foreknowledge" which are other philosophical problems associated with various forms of theism. There is a whole fields of theology dedicated to adressing those problems and offering arguments to solve them. You have ,in this thread, offered at least three arguments to solve the "problem of divine hiddeness" one of which was flattly ridiculous, one which was sound and did offer a solution and one that I believe is rather weak too, but which I won't adress the specifics until you at the very least understand my criticism of the first.

The Wright brothers can't fly unassisted? Nothing can.

Note that all flying animals and a bunch of imaginary creatures and persons can fly unassisted with the helps of wings which are part of their bodies or magical powers of some sort. Obviously you can make the difference between a creature using a body part vs a creature using a tool.

Jesus claim that if you knew who you were you could ask a mountain to move is ridiculous? You have made a claim, do you have any evidence to support your claim?

Why would I do such a thing. This is just obfuscating the subject I want to adress. I have no interest in discussing this particular point.

You're raising issues about my argument from free will? You're arguing about how to argue because you don't have any evidence to prove any of your extraordinary claims.

I have provided evidence for my claim that relationships do not require suppression of free will and that relationship with a power dynamic also don't require the suppression of free will. This make your argument of "god doesn't show himself clearly to everyone because it would go against free will" to be false and illogical. It's false because it doesn't match reality and it's illogical because it's an argument that doesn't support the conclusion.

I should stop using a certain argument? Straw man.

That's not what a strawman is. A strawman is when someone rephrase an argument or a position in such a way that it changes it's content or distort it in some way. For example, If I were to say that you believe that you have no free will because you believe in god and you said that if ou know god you cannot have free will, this would be a strawman because that's not all what you meant or said even if it vaguely sound like something you said.

 

[Super Universe]

It seems that you don't know or don't understand what "the problem of divine hiddeness" means. It's a philosophical problem. It doesn't mean it's an actual problem in the real world. It rests on a bunch of assumptions and has its own limitation. You might also be familiar with "the problem of evil" or "the problem of divine foreknowledge" which are other philosophical problems associated with various forms of theism. There is a whole fields of theology dedicated to adressing those problems and offering arguments to solve them. You have ,in this thread, offered at least three arguments to solve the "problem of divine hiddeness" one of which was flattly ridiculous, one which was sound and did offer a solution and one that I believe is rather weak too, but which I won't adress the specifics until you at the very least understand my criticism of the first.



Note that all flying animals and a bunch of imaginary creatures and persons can fly unassisted with the helps of wings which are part of their bodies or magical powers of some sort. Obviously you can make the difference between a creature using a body part vs a creature using a tool.



Why would I do such a thing. This is just obfuscating the subject I want to adress. I have no interest in discussing this particular point.



I have provided evidence for my claim that relationships do not require suppression of free will and that relationship with a power dynamic also don't require the suppression of free will. This make your argument of "god doesn't show himself clearly to everyone because it would go against free will" to be false and illogical. It's false because it doesn't match reality and it's illogical because it's an argument that doesn't support the conclusion.



That's not what a strawman is. A strawman is when someone rephrase an argument or a position in such a way that it changes it's content or distort it in some way. For example, If I were to say that you believe that you have no free will because you believe in god and you said that if ou know god you cannot have free will, this would be a strawman because that's not all what you meant or said even if it vaguely sound like something you said.

You're right, I don't know you're invented problems because they are not real problems for the universe. They are problems that ignorant humans invented because they don't understand the universe. They think it's supposed to be about them. They think they are supposed to know everything when they are not. People invent all kinds of "problems." There is a man who hides against the wall because he thinks he is a pork chop and people might eat him. That might be a problem for him but not the universe.

Flying animals can fly unassisted? Except that they have wings that make them flying animals. Without wings, there is no flight, there is only drop. I'm sure you think the wings evolved after a series of fortunate accidents.

I am obfuscating the subject? Can't handle your own medicine?

You have provided evidence that relationships do not require the suppression of free will? You have not provided evidence that knowing God exists would not change a person.

That's not what a straw man is? So.

You're very robotic. Very autistically Spockishly inhuman. If you were a Vulcan then it would make sense. Do you lock the deadbolt three times? Do you wash your hands repeatedly? Do you have to sit in the same place on the couch? Why would a human choose to be a logic robot? Humans are emotional beings, we're not machines. Is it something you have learned or is it the way you have always been?

 

[epronovost]

You're right, I don't know you're invented problems because they are not real problems for the universe.

You are correct. There are no gods except those design by our imagination. That doesn't mean it's impossible to critique our stories and the things of ou imagination. People like stories and people like criticising stories too. The OP was making a critique of a certain variety of hypthetical deities. One of the counter-arguments you presented to the critique of the OP was very bad. I criticised in turn your counter-argument because of its false premise.

Flying animals can fly unassisted? Except that they have wings that make them flying animals. Without wings, there is no flight, there is only drop.

Of course, you can make the difference between part of your body and tools just like you can make make the difference between thoughts and actions. They aren't the same ontological category.

You have not provided evidence that knowing God exists would not change a person.

That's not in question either. Changing someone isn't robbing them of their free will. I would also like to point out that you haven't proved that knowing God exist MUST change a person. Depending on the nature of the relationship and contact between humans and a deity, the nature of the change could be dramatic or negligeable. It could be permanent or very temporary too. It all depends on the nature of the contact between deity and human.

That's not what a straw man is? So.

Then don't say something is a straw man when it's not just like you shouldn't call dogs cats.

You're very robotic. Very autistically Spockishly inhuman. If you were a Vulcan then it would make sense. Do you lock the deadbolt three times? Do you wash your hands repeatedly? Do you have to sit in the same place on the couch? Why would a human choose to be a logic robot? Humans are emotional beings, we're not machines. Is it something you have learned or is it the way you have always been?

Are you alright? It seems you got very worked up in that last paragraph. Maybe you should take a deep breath and try to regain some composure. I would just like to remember you that I'm not attacking your faith or your personnal belief in any deity. I'm simply criticising one of your argument which touches more or less on the subject.

 

[Super Universe]

You are correct. There are no gods except those design by our imagination. That doesn't mean it's impossible to critique our stories and the things of ou imagination. People like stories and people like criticising stories too. The OP was making a critique of a certain variety of hypthetical deities. One of the counter-arguments you presented to the critique of the OP was very bad. I criticised in turn your counter-argument because of its false premise.



Of course, you can make the difference between part of your body and tools just like you can make make the difference between thoughts and actions. They aren't the same ontological category.



That's not in question either. Changing someone isn't robbing them of their free will. I would also like to point out that you haven't proved that knowing God exist MUST change a person. Depending on the nature of the relationship and contact between humans and a deity, the nature of the change could be dramatic or negligeable. It could be permanent or very temporary too. It all depends on the nature of the contact between deity and human.



Then don't say something is a straw man when it's not just like you shouldn't call dogs cats.



Are you alright? It seems you got very worked up in that last paragraph. Maybe you should take a deep breath and try to regain some composure. I would just like to remember you that I'm not attacking your faith or your personnal belief in any deity. I'm simply criticising one of your argument which touches more or less on the subject.

I have you figured out. You're introverted, very unemotional, very dry, vanilla, plain. You never smile or laugh. You don't know any jokes. You never listen to music. You don't watch sports. Others would find you're taste in movies and television shows to be weird. And you are somewhat obsessive/compulsive but not quite as bad as Melvin Udall. You can't dance. You never attempt to sing. You don't know any movie or song quotes and you're socially awkward.

You're a high school science teacher or math teacher. Or, wait, this is too easy, you actually teach Athenean Logic at a community college, no wonder you turn every argument into a debate about logic because that's your specialty. It makes you feel good to classify an argument. You think you've won when you haven't addressed the subject matter at all.

In one of the higher levels of the universe there are training schools for ascending beings. Also there are beings who tend the grounds. The landscaping is incredibly beautiful. These beings are very simple, they do their job and never communicate with any other being. They are robots with spirit bodies. I absolutely love them because they do work for the universe, for others, and they never complain, they never take a day off, they never want or ask for anything. They never attempt to control another or use another being. They are what they are and they never try to change into something they are not meant to be.

We're supposed to be humans. We're supposed to sing in the car and dance in the rain, not be logic bots.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

No one learns about God directly from God but it has to come through intermediaries? The intermediaries claim that only they can interpret the religious books because they need you to obey them and give them money. God never appointed any of them.

Why would God not reveal Himself to the people directly? Because that would violate the reason for the universe to exist. God wants free will, not children who know they are being watched by a strict parent.

Why would God need humans to write His word for Him? God doesn't need humans. A very large asteroid could destroy the earth tomorrow and the universe would go on normally. Some humans wrote books and claimed they were from God.

Humans spreading what they think is God's word is just humans doing what humans do. They want everyone to be like them. They don't like it when others are different.

God revealing himself does not violate free will. According to your bible, Satan and many angels who saw God directly still chose to rebel against him, yet they KNOW he exists according to the bible. Why couldn't humans also have the freedom to accept or reject God if he revealed himself unambiguously to everyone?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I have you figured out. You're introverted, very unemotional, very dry, vanilla, plain. You never smile or laugh. You don't know any jokes. You never listen to music. You don't watch sports. Others would find you're taste in movies and television shows to be weird. And you are somewhat obsessive/compulsive but not quite as bad as Melvin Udall. You can't dance. You never attempt to sing. You don't know any movie or song quotes and you're socially awkward.

You're a high school science teacher or math teacher. Or, wait, this is too easy, you actually teach Athenean Logic at a community college, no wonder you turn every argument into a debate about logic because that's your specialty. It makes you feel good to classify an argument. You think you've won when you haven't addressed the subject matter at all.

In one of the higher levels of the universe there are training schools for ascending beings. Also there are beings who tend the grounds. The landscaping is incredibly beautiful. These beings are very simple, they do their job and never communicate with any other being. They are robots with spirit bodies. I absolutely love them because they do work for the universe, for others, and they never complain, they never take a day off, they never want or ask for anything. They never attempt to control another or use another being. They are what they are and they never try to change into something they are not meant to be.

We're supposed to be humans. We're supposed to sing in the car and dance in the rain, not be logic bots.

I'm pretty sure most of your assumptions about him are wrong. But even if they're correct, how is any of that relevant to the discussion?

 

[Super Universe]

I'm pretty sure most of your assumptions about him are wrong. But even if they're correct, how is any of that relevant to the discussion?

My assumptions are not assumptions. Go back and read his posts. There's no life, no emotion. He's acting like a computer program. I'm not really surprised that you can't see it. People take things at face value.

How is personality analysis relevant to the discussion? He avoids discussing the subject matter and analyzes the argument because he knows Athenean logic and doesn't seem to know or care about anything else.

People who study Athenean logic don't care about truth. Logic has nothing to do with truth. What they care about is learning a primitive philosophy that most others don't know so they can feel smart. They know something you don't. The reason others don't know logic is because it's completely useless.

 

[Super Universe]

God revealing himself does not violate free will. According to your bible, Satan and many angels who saw God directly still chose to rebel against him, yet they KNOW he exists according to the bible. Why couldn't humans also have the freedom to accept or reject God if he revealed himself unambiguously to everyone?

God revealing Himself does not violate free will? But it does. People who know God exists cannot choose to reject God. Can't happen. This is not like a bitter child rejecting their parents because the parents were not perfect. This is God, the Source, the Prime Creator. Once you are awakened there is nothing that can over ride it. You will know absolutely, positively, with no doubt. You will remember who you really are, not this primitive simulation character.

According to "my" bible? The bible is not my bible, it's a book written by ignorant men who had an extremely inflated sense of universal importance. You humans really think you are something.

Satan did not rebel against God. Angels are formed in the higher multiverse levels, not heaven. 90% of all angels have never been to heaven. They only know what they are told by the very few angels who have been there. Lucifer and Satan and the other rebel angels rebelled against Jesus.

 

[epronovost]

I have you figured out. You're introverted, very unemotional, very dry, vanilla, plain. You never smile or laugh. You don't know any jokes. You never listen to music. You don't watch sports. Others would find you're taste in movies and television shows to be weird. And you are somewhat obsessive/compulsive but not quite as bad as Melvin Udall. You can't dance. You never attempt to sing. You don't know any movie or song quotes and you're socially awkward.

You are about 30% correct. I'm introverted and flegmatic. In my culture it's poorly viewed for a man to be overly emotional and I was thought a certain level of stoicism by my father vicariously. I know these traits can often be toxic and I have made some progress in the domain of feeling expression. I do smile and laugh often. I do know many jokes. I do listen to music though my favored music style remains classical and instrumental music so a fairly uncommon type. I only watch combat sports once in a while as well as some e-sports. I would say my taste in movies and television shows are fairly conventional. I'm actually quite the cinephile and watch a great variety of movies. I know several movie quotes, but very few song quotes since I don't listen often to music with vocalisation. I indeed do not dance and while as a child I was a good singer who participated in chorus, puberty did a number on my singing voice. This, in addition to lack of practice as my interested shifted makes me a poor singer and I do not sing out loud in public unless the occasion calls for it. I am not particularly socially awkward and I do entertain a reasonably large and divers network of friends though I must admit most of them are women. I am happily married and have a very young daughter.

You're a high school science teacher or math teacher. Or, wait, this is too easy, you actually teach Athenean Logic at a community college, no wonder you turn every argument into a debate about logic because that's your specialty. It makes you feel good to classify an argument. You think you've won when you haven't addressed the subject matter at all.

I am a history teacher at high school and college level. My personnal specialty is Hellenistic Greece though I'm a generalist teacher and most often teach national history or basic world history. Philosophy and natural sciences are only hobbies of mine. I wrote in this thread because it's an amateur philosophical discussion and debate. I enjoy conversation and debate of a philosophical nature. It doesn't make me particularly happy to classify things; ontological debates are actually rather tedious in my opinion though they are often necessary to make the more fun thought experiment. I'm also an amateur fiction writter so I love thought experiment and "world building". Having them be consistent is important to create a sense of immersion so I like finding inconsistencies and "plot-holes". You first argument could be described as a "plot-hole" to a certain degree.

In one of the higher levels of the universe there are training schools for ascending beings. Also there are beings who tend the grounds. The landscaping is incredibly beautiful. These beings are very simple, they do their job and never communicate with any other being. They are robots with spirit bodies. I absolutely love them because they do work for the universe, for others, and they never complain, they never take a day off, they never want or ask for anything. They never attempt to control another or use another being. They are what they are and they never try to change into something they are not meant to be.

We're supposed to be humans. We're supposed to sing in the car and dance in the rain, not be logic bots.

You have a lot of prejudices about universities and the people in it. Professors are no less humans than janitors or store clercs. The only difference is that their frame of reference in discussions on the subject they study and know are different then the laymen because they actually understand and thought in depth about those issues. Sometime, this can make them feel "alien" in the same fashion a parent's knowledge and control of the world might seem astounding to a young child.