Disproof Puns

This idea I had (if somebody else has had it before, please link it) disproves religions where the existence of God depends on faith.

For God to exist, there must be faith.
For faith to exist, there must be humans.
Therefore how could God have created humans,
if humans are necessary for God's existence?
Therefore humans either pre-date God,
therefore God could not have done anything meaningful,
e.g. create the Universe, the Earth, Humans, etc.
or God doesn't exist at all.

By the way did you know this community requires body text

So, I'm pretty sure my wife has PMDD.

I say "pretty sure" because she hasn't been officially diagnosed or anything. Her PMS is terrible. Like, next level terrible. I thought it was her birth control. She's been on it since our daughter was born. The Nexplanon implant. She loved it. But it seemed that every 3 to 3 1/2 weeks, like clockwork she was having severe mental health triggers and was unable to manager herself. Suddenly, she can't function as an adult. She shuts down and becomes depressed and crippled with anxiety. But we're not talking just a case of the "blues" when I say depression, I mean really dark "everyone would be better off without me" and can't get out of bed and won't do the dishes or take a shower kind of depressed. Her anxiety becomes so severe that she becomes very controlling of everyone in the house for fear of ... well ... everyone in the house. Talking to her about it doesn't work because she completely dissociates and stares at the wall, seemingly unable to speak or participate in the conversation. The final straw was about 6 weeks ago when she completely lost it on my son (her step-son). He is high functioning special needs and has emotional dysregulation and mood disorder issues of his own that he's being medicated for (we suspect bipolar but he's too young for that diagnosis). In a heated moment she lost control and she slapped him in the face. Hard. Not just once but multiple times and left a mark on his face.

At this point I insisted she have the birth control implant removed. She resisted so I made it a requirement for attempting to continue in our relationship. She had it removed on Sept. 1st. Which was the day *after* her last period ended. So now, we're literally 3 weeks in and she's still repeating this cycle. Last night, she and my son had another fight. This one wasn't physical (thank God). But he feels very unconsidered and disrespected by her and believes she shows favor to our daughter (his half-sister). We worked everything out before going to bed and starting over again today. But I just have to ask: does this sound like PMDD to anyone else? I'm of the opinion that it is and I have insisted that she see a doctor for it because she becomes emotionally volatile making everyone in the house feel unsafe for about a week out of every month. Then, for about another week, she's basically down with flu symptoms (this is usually the week of her actual period). Then, the week after her period she's (pardon the TMI) &g

For some of yall who don't know this info, it's definitely be helpful. He's a born Korean , ex scj who know very well of the group.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDHb59Gwf8Z_gHEhqWHsA6m_674owoj0Y

I have noticed that a lot of atheists think it is impossible to logically disprove the existence of a Biblical type god. However, a Biblical type god has a self-contradictory definition. Because of this it is very easy to formulate airtight logical disproofs that one exists. Below are five such disproofs that are not only purely logical but brief. Following them is a very formal version of the fifth one. I have copyrighted all of the disproofs not to prevent others from using them but only to establish that they were my ideas. Feel free to use them as much as you like.

1.) Good beings do not freely desire to be worshiped. They desire to inspire others (and especially others who are good) to be as good as and even better than they not hold them in prostration. Freely attempting to hold others (and especially others who are good) in prostration is on its face proof that the attempter is not good. Accordingly, a being who freely desires to be worshiped and is-all good does not exist. However, by definition a Biblical type god is a being who freely desires to be worshiped and is all-good. Therefore, a Biblical type god does not exist.

2.) Freely permitting the temptation of good beings to be bad is inconsistent with good itself. As such, an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good god would not do it. Obviously, however, the temptation of good beings to be bad exists throughout the world. Accordingly, an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good god does not exist. However, by definition a Biblical type god is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. Therefore, a Biblical type god does not exist.

3.) All beings have freewill. As such, a being that is all-good would have it. Moreover, in knowing that it had freewill it would know that it had the capacity to choose to become evil. In this it would know that if it chose to become evil while being worshiped by others the worshipers would be left to follow it (evil) in blind faith. Accordingly, being all-good it would not freely hold that it should be worshiped by others (and especially would not freely hold that it should be worshiped by others who were good). As such, a being that is all-good and freely holds that it should be worshiped by others does not exist. However, by definition a Biblical type god is a being that is all-good and freely holds that it should be worshiped by others. Therefore, a Biblical type god does not exist.

4.) Some wrongs are so bad that there is no amount of compensation that could be

I appreciate polite, civil, and honest expressions from people who are curious or wishing improve themselves intellectually with calm debate. But people from outside this community who continually come on here with the intention to boost their egos by picking “low-hanging fruit” on the philosophical hierarchy are plain annoying. If you don’t believe it you don’t have to get over yourself, leave us alone.

My title's basically just a short restatement of what I said in longer form here.

Now, something being "dogma" in Catholicism means that it's been infallibly asserted; and to be sure, there's some slight ambiguity as to how to determine whether something has truly been infallibly proclaimed or not. But there are plenty of instances where there isn't any real ambiguity about this.

So if we have a reasonable suspicion that Catholicism may be false — or, certainly, if someone wants to defend Catholicism against this charge — then I think we should focus our efforts on some of the smaller and more "testable" points of dogma here. It'd obviously be much manageable than trying to tackle all the complex things that have been proposed in the faith as a whole: the historical truth of the resurrection, etc.

Also, backing up a little, the principle behind all this is simple: in Catholic theology, God supernaturally preserves the Church from asserting theological error as dogma. So if there is an instance of theological error being asserted as dogma, then God has failed to do what he promised in protecting the Church. In fact, it's tantamount to God himself asserting error.

(Further, I say that this would only help us determine the truth of Catholicism "in the negative" because, obviously, demonstrating the validity of a single point of Catholic dogma wouldn't prove the truth of the faith as a whole. Every other dogmatic claim would also still have to be true.)

In my original comment, I characterized this as a kind of inherent weakness of Catholicism because, to me it suggests a kind of extreme precariousness, and seems to entail an almost irresponsible amount of confidence that even the tiniest point of dogma can withstand the full brunt of critical inquiry.

Finally, most Catholic theologians believe that Biblical inerrancy — the complete absence of error in the canonical Biblical texts — has in fact been dogmatically asserted. If this is true, then, we could bring our "test" of Catholicism to even more of a micro-level: here the truth of Catholicism would be dependent on not even a single Biblical claim being in error. I suggest, then, that this is one of the absolute best candidates for our test (but, again, that this also puts Catholicism in an extremely precarious situation).

Note: re: inerrancy, there's some am

If someone could just share their insights especially the ones in Daniel and Revelations about the end times, the Great Disappointment, prophecies related to history, or other prophecies SDAs believe they’ve got figured out, would be really great.

Those prophecies were a big reason as to why I was so hesitant to stop believing in this religion. It gave me so much fear, anxiety, and paranoia ever since they’ve been teaching it to me as a child. It made me so scared to die and I would have nights where I couldn’t sleep because they made them sound so believable and it actually made sense in my head. It doesn’t help that I’m still forced to go to church regularly because every time someone brings it up I just get so scared all over again.

(I don’t believe in this religion anymore by the way, I just really need a sense of relief.)

Okay so I Saw a weakling on Reddit who posted all Pig changes that happend in DBD history to proof she has been changed for the better more than the negative. First I will quote what he said and than proof why he is wrong.

>"1.9.1 - Pig's bloodpoint gains increased
>
>1.9.2 - Pig's ritual changed from kill with reverse bear trap to land ambush attacks, bloodpoints for ambush rebalanced
>
>2.0.0 - Fixed a bug that made her vault slower
>
>2.2.0 - Fixed ambush hit detection on stairs and add-on debuffs
>
>2.3.0 - Pig no longer has a red light while crouched, Pig's footsteps were made quieter
>
>2.5.0 - Crouching takes 1.3s instead of 2s, Terror radius fades away faster, bigger terror radius, doubled all bloodpoints related to ambush, fixed the camera position
>
>2.7.0 - Traps don't kill on exit gates when they were put after all the gens were done
>
>3.1.0 - The Pig's Ambush Attack is no longer considered a basic attack. (This is more of a buff than a nerf thanks to the STBFL interaction), crouch add-ons apply to uncrouching as well. Movement curves when crouching and uncrouching adjusted, making it more smooth and feel better to play
>
>3.2.0 - Ambush no longer instadowns exposed survivors (bugfix)
>
>3.2.1 - Fixed a bug that made Pig carry survivors faster than other killers
>
>3.3.0 - Pig is undetectable while crouching"

Yet he forgot a couple of things. Let me break it down:

1.91-2.2.0 are neutral, because fixing a bug means you introduced one first.

2.3.0 and 2.5.0 are actually nice changes, but they made her go from bad to okay.

2.7.0 and 3.1.0, don't decide if it is good or bad man, it is a nerf and two bigger ones.

3.2.1 and 3.3.0 are again a bug fix (not in her favor this time) and the other one was a minor buff that almost never really takes new effect.

So in total:

1.91-2.2.0: No changes at all.

2.3.0-2.5.0: +1 Piggy point (buffs, but everyone can see it would be weird to not have it).

2.7.0-3.1.0: -5 Piggy points (Major nerf to her Endgame and a minor nerf to her ambush).

3.2.0-3.3.0: +1 Piggy point (2 negative bug fixes and a really minor buff).

Total: -3 Piggy points, Piggy is still really in the negative.

Edit: Fixed a couple spelling errors.

I revisted articles about this legal outcome recently and was once again incensed by the reasoning behind the verdict. Basically, ex-Mormons cannot sue the LDS church for lying to them their entire lives in order to get money and free labor from them, because of the unspoken implication that it would open up the floodgates to all religions having to substantiate their claims in a court of law. And that's bad...why? It seems like a verdict decided upon by a religious judge & jury, for the protection of religion.

Mormonism is recent enough that there's ample surviving contemporaneous evidence of Joseph Smith's many frauds. The genetic argument, references to horses where none existed at the time, the "Book of Abraham" turning out to be Egyptian funerary rites once Egyptian became possible to translate and more.

Even if older religions are safely out of that fledgling period where such materials discrediting them are still possible to dig up, Mormonism can be so concretely and inarguably disproven that there's no reason not to take it to court, except that it would make Mormons unhappy.

I have some questions about Peikoff's disproof of supernaturalism in OPAR (p. 31):

> "Supernatural," etymologically, means that which is above or beyond nature. "Nature," in turn, denotes existence viewed from a certain perspective. Nature is existence regarded as a system of interconnected entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities. What then is a "super-nature"? It would have to be a form of existence beyond existence; a thing beyond entities; a something beyond identity.

Peikoff's argument here is deductive, as follows:

1. "Supernatural" means that which is above or beyond nature.

2. "Nature" is existence (viewed from a certain perspective, as a system of interconnected entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities).

3. Therefore, the supernatural does not exist.

I have some questions about this argument.

First, which supernaturalists define "supernatural" and "nature" in these ways? I'm not sure this is actually the claim being made.

Second, Peikoff says in the final two sentences of the preceding paragraph on the same page that one of his targets with this argument is religion:

> The unsophisticated but popular version of idealism, which typically upholds a personalized other dimension, is religion. Essential to all versions of this creed, however - and to countless kindred movements - is the belief in the supernatural.

But I'm not sure all religious people actually do uphold belief in the supernatural. Some religious people regard the concept of the supernatural as too unclear to be useful, so they do not characterize their belief in this way. In addition, some religious people would likely say that God, angels, and the other fantastical entities they believe in are part of nature as Peikoff construes it (entities interacting according to their identities).

To be clear, I do not intend this as a "refutation" of Peikoff or anything like that, I'm just trying to understand what is going on in this very concise paragraph.

EDIT: It seems that part of my argument needs more clarification. Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of moral arguments for God. The first, and most common, turns upon the existence of objective moral facts being contingent upon God; the second, and less common, turns upon human knowledge of moral facts being contingent upon God. At first glance it seems that my disproof only deals with the second kind of argument. But I deliberately phrased it the way I did in order to deal with both kinds of argument.

What both kinds of arguments have in common is that, in both cases, God is in some way required for us to know objective morals. The key phrase here is "in some way." In the kind of argument dealing with knowledge of morals, this is more or less a restatement of the major premise. In the kind of argument dealing with the existence of morals, the above is true in a trivial sense: without God (according to the argument), there would be no objective morals for us to know.

Here is the disproof.

(1) If i) God exists, ii) objective morals exist, iii) God is in some way required for us to know objective morals, and iv) we do not have full epistemic access to God's moral calculus, then for all we know it is possible for a human to acquire a moral duty to commit irredeemable genocide.

By irredeemable genocide, I mean genocide that serves no greater goods that any human can determine.

Note that in one part of the premise I speak of greater goods, but in another I speak of moral duties. This is to acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of theists seem to be deontologists, rather than consequentialists -- that is, they believe that actions are right or wrong regardless of whether they produce good or bad effects, because they conform or don't conform to a moral rule. Even under deontology, however, actions still have good or bad effects. To avoid inconsistency, I define irredeemability in terms of greater goods, rather than justifying goods.

(2) It is not possible, even for all we know, for a human to acquire a moral duty to commit irredeemable genocide.

I'm going to assume that the theist making the moral argument will stipulate this. If he doesn't, you can tell all and sundry that the theist in question will not rule out the possibility of God informing a human that he has a moral duty to commit irredeemable genocide; any reasonable onlooker should find this unacceptable.

Edit: As noted in the comments, getting t