Ramshutu’s Razor

The goal was for humanity to have fellowship and live with Him forever, so the universe and this world is irrelevant to that. It is a means to an end, not the end. 

When Adam sinned God cursed not only the earth/world/universe through entropy but also placed curses on the woman in childbirth, the ground, the serpent, and barred humanity from intimate everlasting fellowship by barring humanity from the Garden and eating from the tree of life and living forever. This was a temporary provision until the Son restored that fellowship, conquered death, and provided a means to live everlastingly with God in joy and happiness.  

You can't, haven't and won't demonstrate a final, ultimate, universal standard or measure.

Regurgitated indoctrinated dogma, oh dear.

Amazing how one smart guy with one argument can decimate an entire group of believers who can barely form coherent sentences. Love it.

another thought. if there can be an objective purpose, it would make most sense to think our reality is most best expression of that, given reality is objective. you are subjectively calling reality inferior to some subjective purpose. 

Fallacy #1 “It is subjective when you all ply our objective rules”

I’m not entirely sure how much simpler, or slower I can explain this. It seems no matter how simply I explain this, multiple people are making this same insane argument.

But let me try again!

So let’s assume that in the reality in which we exist: God exists. Morality is objective. Values are Objective. Yay.

As an Athiest, I should be able to take this Morality (which I share or can derive from religious explanations), and take these objective values - and apply them to the universe.

Lo and behold - in a universe where morality and these religious values are objective - the universe would be the best possible universe that could be imagined.

I would not be able to, say, imaging a small change that would objectively improve it as it pertains to those objective values or objective morality.

There maybe subjective areas where you could argue, but there’s unlikely to be any areas where you’ll be completely stumped.

Now let’s presume for a moment - that there is no God in this reality. You guys still claim your morality is objective, and your values are objective: but you just think that - it’s not really the case, because your God and religious is fictitious.

In this universe, I can apply these “Objective” morals and “objective” values to the universe and show that I can EASILY invent a universe that it is better by your own objective values and morality;  then as I should be able to do that in the best universe. It proves that we don’t live in a universe where God exists.


Everyone here appears to be making the claim that when you make a value judgement, it’s objective and valid: yet when I make a value judgement - it’s subjective and meaningless.

That is nonsensical.

If we both agree that Hitler is worse than Adam Sandler; if you feel that is true based on your objective morals and your objective values - then how on earth is it possible for me making the same statement to be arbitrary and subjective? Especially when I’m applying the same rules as you.


If I can’t apply your rules, your morals and your values objectively - then by definition your rules, morals and values are not objective - and you God doesn’t exist.

If I can apply your “objective” rules, morals and values objectively - and use this to show a better universe judged by these values - then your God can’t exist either for the reasons I covered.



This utterly nonsensical argument put forward by multiple people here makes no sense:

You are arguing that your objective morals, rules and values can be applied and are objective.... but hey, wait... an atheist is applying those morals, rules and values... so it’s... uhh... subjective...


It’s nonsensical, as I said.


What is worse; your mostly arguing in the abstract. 

Why don’t we actually try and see?

How about we compare a different universe and compare whether YOU with your objective values and morals can think of a reason why this universe is better?

It seems everyone is adamant that we shouldn’t even try - that doesn’t strike me as a particularly healthy way of expressing an open mind and strong faith.

Fallacy #2 “best means perfect”

This is worth reiterating again: as it’s being used multiple times by multiple people.

The “Best” universe, is one that does EVERYTHING God wants it to. To the greatest degree possible.

God is not going to create the universe and say “Meh, I could have done better”.


Now - and brace yourself, this will come as a shock - I am not using my personal opinion on what “best” is.

From my opening post, I have made it clear that the “best universe” is one that best fulfills Gods Goals.

If God wants the universe to be imperfect to allow free will; then the “best” universe will be imperfect - and has to be to satisfy Gods goals.


This pernicious assumption that the razor applies solely my own criteria, is bellied by the fact I expressly started this is not the case.

It appears, given the arguments made and fixation on the meaning of perfection: that those making this argument either haven’t read the razor, or don’t really understand it.

So in this case, let’s be clear: a perfect universe is one that best meets the requirements God has, God is not incompetent, and made no mistakes: and given the combination of goals and intent he has for the universe - a mere human can make no improvement to better fulfill those goals.

See Fallacy #1

The razor intentionally judges reality by the objective purpose religions enumerates. I’m not arguing the universe is not perfect because I don’t have more money, or broken legs are a thing: I’m arguing that based on the universe not being the best manifestation of the objective purpose various religions attach to reality.

So this is a sub fallacy. Humans have free will, we can be shitty, we can kill, we can be jealous, we can steal and covet our neighbours ass. A universe where these are possible, I can presume is necessary and “best” given the goals of God.

In that respect, missed, revenge, jealousy add not condoned by God, they are necessary.

Now, regardless of who you are, how much you may or may not sin; no matter how much pressure you’re under, or what scenario you find yourself in: I would place money on the fact that at no point have you been sexually attracted to a toddler. I can imaging you have non-seriously thought of theft or murder in particularly bad moments. 

The nature of humanity means that I can imagine anyone here saying “I could murder that guy” not acting on it, nor really even meaning it: but the notion and concept is relatable. You’re more likely to have seriously considered pushing or punching someone - you may have even acted on it. Not good, but reasonable. I am also equally sure, that at no point have you!- or anyone on this forum - been in the position where they have considered paedophilia.

This raises the key fallacy.

If God created humans or the universe with the express intent of creating humans. What we may or may not do, the limits of our free will are set and controlled by God.

We kill and murder because of ourselves - sure. We have the capacity to consider murder, and the capacity to act on it because of Hod.

In this case, when God was creating humanity, he expressly, knowingly and purposefully set those limit to include Paedophilia.

So, in this case, the existence of Paedophilia is sanctioned and condones by God.

What is worse: is we are only having this conversation because he set the limit. You and I don’t have the capacity - it’s not something we even consider. God had the ability to create humans and say “You know, I could make a small percentage of people sexually attracted to Toddlers - but I see no need to make that a thing”.

Conversely, can you imagine God placing the finishing touches on his creation and thinking: “You know thisnis perfect, the best I can do... but it’s missing something.... ahh yes *snap* now there is a small number of humans that will be attracted to children. Now it’s Perfect!

"reality isn't as i like, therefore God doesn't exist" 

sure, doesn't sound subjective at all? i hope you can at least understand our skepticism at such kind of thinking.    

do you think there's an objective purpose to reality? why or why not? do you think if it exists that it's possible to know what it is, or know that there exists such a purpose? why or why not? 

See Fallacy 1 in the previous page

This is the now the third or fourth time you’ve presented this straw man. It’s like you’re not even trying to accurately represent my position any more.

For the fifth time now: it is not “reality is not as I like it”. 

It is : the universe should be the best possible universe for meeting Gods goals, and intent. As religions spell our Gods goals and intent - if a universe that better fulfills these goals exists can be imagined - then a God with those goals cannot exist.

Dunno - for the purposes of this thread - if is irrelevant. As the entire razor operates under the presupposition that God exists, and the rules of a targeted religion are true.

This is a basic test of religions self consistency, rather than the application of anything atheist.

the objective purpose could be that God wants to save us from a reality with problems in it. you insist you're not being subjective, but it's just one man's opinion that the purposes of God are not being met by that scenario. 

Again: See Fallacy 1. You keeping injecting this same fallacy - this is the fifth time now.

What you’re doing, again, is simply accusing me of choosing subjective criteria and opinions: yet the application of the Razor is expressly using the goals and properties of God as described by a given religion.

For example, God is apparently Moral, Just, loving, abhors unnecessary suffering and wants humans to have free will, to be able to chose him over sin; he wants the choice to be free, so doesn’t want to expressly reveal himself

Are those not the properties of God as broadly described by Christianity? They’re pretty simple. Apparently in a theist world these are mostly objective properties.

If I can imagine a world where all of the above are satisfied as much as they are now - but is objectively more just using your own objective give criteria of justice laid down by your religion. That is a better universe. And that God can’t exist

Your reply here, is frankly a massive cop out.

Basically, what surprises me about the Razor in general, and is self evident from the responses here: the Razor is specific - to apply it you must spell out specific ways the universe could be better.

Once the counter universe is presented - you could find reasons why it is subjective, or wrong.

Theists won’t normally do that - they will normally do what they do here - and simply argue that I cannot come up with a better universe, by arguing absurd abstracts like you’re doing.

Normally, they won’t touch the specifics with a bargepole.

The reason is simple: When you deal with the specifics, it becomes clear that there is no meaningful argument that can be presented for why the fictional universe would not objectively uphold Gods values better. 

how would your analysis change if we were to presume that there exists an objective purpose to reality? 

Considering that the entire argument inherently requires you to presuppose that there is an objective purpose to the universe, given to it by God. And given that it is this objective purpose that is being tested by the Razor, and given that I have been explaining for the last half dozen posts that this is the Pressupossition, and given that Fallacy #1 is trying to point out the objective pressupposition of purpose is the test. And is not some subjective condition imposed on by me....

... The analysis isn’t going to change at all.

Are you absolutely certain of that?

Youre argument is circular. You’re logic is ridiculous, and refuted throughout. You don’t seem to want to bother engaging on logic and are doing nothing much more than repeatedly scream about how right you are.

As you’re not adding anything to this thread, and I think you only have a tenuous grasp of any of the logic - I’m ignoring you.

However, feel free to go back and address any of the key major logical flaws in your position that have been outlined and ignored.

There is nothing rational about denying absolute truth.

I’m not denying absolute truth.

I’m denying your argument.

Screaming at us that you have found the absolute truth, or that you’re talking about the absolute truth doesn’t make it

true.

1.) Formulafe initial conjecture.

2.) Analyze with rigorous logic, check, double check and confirm there are no issues or inherent fallacies.

3.) Present Conjecture as a valid thesis.

You've missed step 2.

The absolute truth is God, that's what it means.

You are talking nonsense.

No he isn’t.

Your  argument is that God is the absolute Truth; but that doesn’t mean that’s what God is, or that he even exists.

Your conception of God is not God.

You are clearly confused.

The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is God. That is what the word "God" means. 

Your conception of God is God. 

That you or someone else has defined God to be reality doesn’t mean that God exists. How we define words has no bearing on existence.

The Ultimate Reality is not a conception.

That is what God means. The Ultimate Reality. Definitions establish what we are talking about.

You have absolutely no argument without making God a strawman.

Ultimate reality - whatever that is, presumably exists.

That it is God, that is your conception, and is fallible.

That God is the ultimate reality, that is your conception, and is fallible.

You may claim God means reality - again your conception.

Your problem is that ultimate reality doesn’t mean God.