Mr. Philosoraptor.s5
Region: US
Wednesday 08 July 2026 17:10:22 GMT
13813
465
66
68
Music
Download
Comments
True :
Ok cool
2026-07-18 10:46:44
0
Mahi :
Who are u
2026-07-08 23:15:57
1
✝️Blackman✝️🇺🇸🥊 :
Why are you training the opps?? Do you want em to win or just have better arguments so it’s more fun to debate them?
2026-07-14 17:37:25
2
stejazz :
I'm Atheist in the Name of God
2026-07-08 17:39:20
2
Felix P. :
i feel like p2's formal definition equivocates not believing in god with not being in a position to believe in god. assuming that we can reformulate 'x being in a position to believe' as 'it is possible that x believes', a person not believing in god despite being capable of believing in god by p1 doesn't contradict the definition. i feel like you're atomically defining a modal statement in B(x) and then negating it in p2, but I don't think you can justify 'there exists an x where x is not resistant to belief and x is capable of belief and it is not possible that x believes in God' inductively as you argue later.
2026-07-10 00:46:15
1
Jack :
how to start formal logic and getting into this philosophy thing ✌️😁
2026-07-14 07:07:59
0
arandom_bwplayer :
Formal logic is a bit overkill for this isnt it?
2026-07-08 20:06:29
18
y :
your main agreement is that hideness proves god not "all-loving", but you should also consider that reveal of identity actually are very specific cases really does god even ever interact with humanity in general even to his most faithful, and to himself/or his "son" in most theological belief does he physically, or drastically show himself as god. While it true "non-belief" usually isn't case of total non belief, but it is also case of total agnostic belief. the searching, and "non-closure" of search for the "divine", or a "higher metric/concept" and not total radical belief of that their is not "divine" and the universe itself is purely phsyical existence which atheism believes. atheism and agonistic are two different things. So I rather argue that is non belief. it is non assurance of such circumstances such as "divine" which most theological texts do not speak much of the consequences and view of such person under eyes of Christian God. I say that in the end it does not mean hatred nor does it mean that "god" specially refuses a person on the basis of hatred for them, but yet I truly believe the refusal isn't, but rather consequence of choice, and decisions and it depend on your "theological" belief on wether the person goes to heaven, hell, or etc. (to make my point clearer you do not necessarily hate someone, and might even feel sympathy, or empathy for average stranger, but yet you don't know them, and they don't know you so in end they have no connection to you). Now let me return to the point I like to make that purely on the basis of argument I do feel that in the end "god has his reason" only logical extent and response in the end. logically an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving god would also need to be aware that he himself doesn't break someone mind with his "powers" we assume that these labels, and powers are simply things that "are" simply understandable by human metric since we create those words, and concept in our mind, but in end do we truly know what "divine" anything is.
2026-07-15 21:53:01
1
parttimeidiot :
This is the EPOE right?
2026-07-09 03:55:16
0
إيمانويل :
yo bro this is actually impressive how knowledgeable you are bro God blessed you with High intelligence keep this up bro
2026-07-10 22:53:37
8
🏴∀0⚛️ :
i always use to avoid arguments that directly target omnibenevolence though this is quite elegant imo and extremely intuitive, much love
2026-07-09 19:27:47
3
.... :
underrated argument
2026-07-09 00:15:17
5
ajehdeu :
For P1, can you define hidden?
2026-07-11 20:38:47
0
fthnotfound1.0 :
cool
2026-07-08 17:56:06
2
Jiggy Grazer (s5) :
i thought bro was gonna FULLY REFUTE hypergamy😌
2026-07-08 17:18:22
6
✝️Jery✝️ :
Hmm interesting. The way I’d respond would be by saying that God gives people intellectual freedom will, meaning that God cannot forcefully make someone believe in something. If someone is unconvinced, God cannot force them to believe. God also values questioning beliefs, which includes belief in God (forgot the specific verse sorry). This means that it is possible that belief in God being questioned is a good thing. However, for belief in God to be questioned, belief in God must be weak enough to be questioned. For example, if I offered you a million dollars to believe the earth was flat, despite you genuinely trying to believe the earth is flat, you’ll find you’re far too confident in the belief is round to be able to question it. Which is why I said before that for belief in God to be questionable, it must be for at least one moment, weak enough to be questioned. If belief in God can be that weak in order to be questioned, then it follows that someone can be unconvinced by it despite not being resistant. I’m pretty tired rn so sorry if this is a bit half baked but I’d love to hear your thoughts on it
2026-07-08 17:40:21
7
Thanks :
I dont think that God interacts with world whatsoever, bcuz of that i love deism more
2026-07-11 10:03:20
1
renzo :
none of those rebuttals are even remotely good😭 the only obvious rebuttal to this arg is that it doesn’t refute theism, it only works against religions that claim god as loving. this arg is good against religions, terribly weak against theism 😭
2026-07-08 20:39:06
3
zSlq :
Not all religions assume the loving part, some assume god is not “all loving” rather “most loving”
2026-07-08 23:27:30
3
user277373877 :
You’re statement failed when Christianity was a thing back in ancient china back in 2500bc way before any other civilization I mean shi china wasn’t even on the geographic map at that time
2026-07-08 17:21:57
1
To see more videos from user @therationalanimal, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
