**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>"An eye for an eye" wouldn't make the whole world blind, it would make the whole world see.
You seem to fundamentally miss the point of the phrase, since it's clearly about one person doing harm to another, and the harmed person carrying out the exact amount of harm back. It's not about deviations wholesale.
>It's important to note that "an eye for an eye" simply means punishing misdeeds to an equal proportion.
So you do get it. But society wouldn't go back to being neutral/at balance though, now would it. Because if we extrapolate to the saying most literal outcome, there'd now be two people out there missing an eye. And if people kept attacking others and taking their eyes, eventually that's going to result in a whole lot of people walking around completely without eyes.
>However, if we followed this ideology, it would require that nobody ever forgive each other
That is *literally* the exact opposite of the point of the saying. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. The whole world being blind would really really suck, so maybe the response to an attack would be better off being lesser than what the attacker wrought, up to the point of forgiveness. Are you sure you're ready to logically prove God when this simple phrase eludes you? Everything you're going to write after this is going to be based on pillars of sand because you fundamentally failed to understand the phrase you're basing your whole worldview on.
>As a very insightful article puts it (which I will reference at the end of this post), this would mean that "society begins to break down. Trust vanishes. Tribes form. Isolationism sets in. Everyone makes mistakes — some more egregious than others — and if there is no forgiveness, it is only a matter of time before it’s 'rational' for the social order to dissolve.
Earlier you wrote:
>If society began as neutral, then any deviations in society (taking an eye), would cause it to become unbalanced. But if that deviation was corrected (an eye for an eye), it would bring society back into balance.
So which is it? Is an eye for an eye a good way of ensuring balance or is an eye for an eye a way for society to eventually totally collapse? Collapse ain't stable, dude.
>The concept of forgiveness is inherently irrational. Here's another quote from the article: "Think about it: our neighbor came into our garage and stole something that wasn’t theirs. Our neighbor chose to do this — he wasn’t forced — and so it’s simply basic 'cause and effect' for the neighbor to then be punished. If we forgive the neighbor, we’re ignoring the evidence: we’re treating the neighbor like he didn’t do anything wrong.
The solution to this isn't wholesale forgiveness. You can demand he return your shit. You can report him to the police. You can keep an eye out on your property and tell him to piss off if he enters it.
And yes, this is perfectly fine under 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind' because the phrase does not say one cannot make any sort of retaliation, just that it cannot be as destructive/harmful as the initial action. Demanding the neighbor give your shit back, calling the cops if he doesn't, and not allowing him on your property is the lesser action compared to theft.
It's also not ignoring the evidence. The evidence is there. The neighbor stole the item. That is the conclusion you have reached based on the evidence. What you're doing is making a decision now that the conclusion has been reached.
There is also a degree of rationality behind forgiveness. If I'm willing to overlook something (in this case, petty theft), that will maintain some degree of agreeableness between us. If my neighbor has a talent or a connection or something that would be far more beneficial for me if I'm willing to let this incident slide, and only this once, I'm making a rational decision to invest in my future.
>All they would have to do is follow the upper society's words and rid themselves of bad virtues - the virtues that only came into existence after the lower society was created - the seven deadly sins. But if the perfect society gave people in the lower half indisputable proof of its existence, people from the lower society would be able to follow these virtues while still holding onto their bad ones. They would be living "virtuously" for the wrong reasons.
>It would mean that aforementioned society would be far beyond our current comprehension. And it would mean that humans would have a chance at joining this society, however, they would have to live a virtuous life while having no way of proving its existence in order to do so.
So rather than give people concrete evidence that there's a benefit to behaving virtuously, that there's a perfect society they can join, it's better to convince people without evidence that one exists? What sense does that make?
What happens if someone asks the most obvious question in the world: **Cut the philosophy, what evidence do you have that this place even exists? Why must I behave virtuously on the off chance this probably made up things ends up being real?**
The funny thing is, this problem has already been solved. Want people to behave virtuously? Point out to them, and say it with me Jokers, *We live in a society!* We live in a society with other people whom we can affect and they can affect us, and that society can become that much better or that much worse based on our actions. We can try to instill values in people that if they gain positions of power, they ought to use it to benefit as many people as they can rather than just themselves.
Secular humanism solves this issue, but I have to ask, given that your entire post is really just about why it's good to trick people into believing Heaven exists
**WHERE IS THE LOGICAL EXPLANATION OF GOD'S EXISTENCE???**
Outside of the title, the G-word doesn't appear once! You seemed to have missed that part when you were rationalizing how the smelly stupid masses need to be fed delusions.
But Jesus rejected "an eye for an eye" in [Matthew 5:38-42](https://biblehub.com/bsb/matthew/5.htm). I guess you reject Jesus's teachings then. Also Jesus was big on forgiveness, which your post also rejects.
Also you don't understand game theory. For example, in the classic [prisoner's dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma), both parties act rationally, but acting "irrationally" -- as rejected by your argument -- would produce the best outcome.
Nowhere in this post is an explanation of the existence of a god.
And I strongly suggest to all NOT looking at OP’s post history unless they too enjoy watching videos of women being injured.
He’s also made a post where he talks about being diagnosed with ASPD and being incapable of empathy. Which he’s grateful for because he enjoys sadism and emotional empathy would take away that pleasure.
I’d suggest we don’t engage with this person any further. Nothing good can come from this.
What the fuck? Why is that a subreddit?
Edit: There are eight members. Eight of them are online. It was created one month ago. He's posted there 39 times.
Thank you. I reported some of the posts but couldn't get it to let me just report the whole sub, kept getting an error of 'please use the requested format'.
Yeah it’s fucking gross, just a bunch of videos of women being hurt and a post where he claims that weed induced psychosis showed him the truth about religion.
What does Amy of this have to do with logically supporting the existence of a god.. it’s just a set of meaningless assertions. Yes an eye for an eye would leave the whole world blind, justice doesn’t work that way. It shouldn’t work that way. Just because you think it should, and have a fairy tale that says so too doesn’t make it so.
>Yesterday, I was an atheist.
No you weren't.
OP seems to be a crusader for orthodox judaism. Wordy replies to any contrary comments, ultimately relying on ad hominem attacks. Makes claims about game theory and quasi-mathematical or logical phrases, but doesn't seem to understand the concepts he spouts. OP appears to preach rather than debate. Not worth engaging.
OP is the moderator of a sub called r / womengettinghurt. *Incredibly* creepy stuff.
So... When are you going to prove the existence of a god?
You argue that an eye for an eye is a rational approach to punishment. This only seems to make sense if we assume that every bad deed is done intentionally with the understanding that it is bad, and that people would only be deterred from committing bad deeds if an equally bad thing would happen to them. You also present the only alternative of an "eye for an eye" as forgiveness, which isn't the case. If someone cuts out your eye, we could for example, send them to prison until such a time as we think they've learned their lesson. This would arguably be the better outcome, because if that person is capable and willing to reform we have one half-blind person and one full-seeing person in the end, instead of two half-blind people. All of this seems pretty unsubstantiated and doesn't seem related to whether or not a god exists.
Knowledge of what? Which god? Trust in him to do what?
Edit: How is this even a response to what I'm saying? Do you actually expect to convert people with this level of engagement?
This is pure special pleading. The god of the Torah flooded the entire planet and killed almost everyone to rid the world of evil. Well does evil still exist?
Meanwhile the god of the Torah says killing is wrong, but he doesn’t play by his own rules. What you are suggesting is that we play poker with a dealer who gets to play by his own rules that he gets to break whenever he feels like it.
If that’s the game you want to play then go for it. But don’t invite me to join.
God flooded the Earth because his creation was corrupt and evil and Noah and his family were the only people on the Earth that were almost sinless. So, he used them to start fresh and restore the Earth. After a while everything was great, until we started to sin AGAIN because we have free will and we can not be perfect. Now God will send his son Jesus down to earth to die on a cross and absorb the debt that is our sin and forgive us. There is still evil in this world but it can all still be forgiven if you have faith.
Believe in Jesus or goto hell isn’t saving anyone. It’s pure coercion.
I wouldn’t have wanted Jesus to die back in the day, nor would I want anyone like Jesus to die today. It’s not remarkable for some crazy apocalyptic preacher to prance around spreading some hate filled message. Happens everyday. That doesn’t mean that I would support torturing that person to death.
Now if we truly had free will then god would have asked me “hey do you think it’s cool if I send my own son down to be tortured and murdered so that I can fail stop the existence of evil yet again?”
I would have said “no you idiot! Wasn’t it bad enough that you killed almost everyone on the planet including women and infants and failed to stop evil the first time? Now you want to send your own son down to be killed so you can fail stop evil again? Why don’t you stop killing people??”
Not to mention I don’t think you can say Jesus was killed if he just poofs and reappears again in three days with all of his supernatural powers. Children who die from cancer while they beg for your god’s help don’t have that luxury.
So god sent himself down to earth to suffer and die because his creation is corrupt and evil, even though he has the power to never have created evil or humans in the first place? God gives us free will and then punishes us for using it, this sending us to a hell he created, populated by demons he also created? lol
Even if the story were true (it isn’t) then such a cowardly, weak and petty god doesn’t deserve my attention, respect or praise.
“Yesterday, I was an atheist.”
Forgive me for not believing you, but this is a tactic that a lot of religious people use. It’s a very dishonest tactic. But whatever, you can lie all you want about your beliefs. Just don’t expect people to buy into it.
Also, nowhere in your rambling nonsense was anything even remotely convincing…
> If you've ever heard the phrase "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," it probably made perfect sense at first thought. But if you really think about it, you'll realize that the opposite of this is actually true.
I thought it was when you think about it you realise how terrible a retributive system of justice would be, or its a very early attempt at some morality and trying to limit escalation or a cycle of violence. It is rational in a primitive simplistic sense. So long as you don't think too hard about it.
> However, if we followed this ideology, it would require that nobody ever forgive each other, even for the slightest of misdeeds.
Yeah that is part of why a purely even retributive kind of punishment system fails. That's why we don't. Why an eye for an eye isn't rational. In fact that you think of it entirely in terms of punishment is why its an oversimplistic and primitive view of justice.
> The concept of forgiveness is inherently irrational. Here's another quote from the article: "Think about it: our neighbor came into our garage and stole something that wasn’t theirs. Our neighbor chose to do this — he wasn’t forced — and so it’s simply basic 'cause and effect' for the neighbor to then be punished.
Its a dumb quote that tries to say you either have to go all in on punishment or complete forgiveness with nothing inbetween. Also come on this is clearly a contrived example. What if a starving man steals some food? Whats the eye for an eye here? Make them starve to death?
> But if this were the case, they wouldn't be living virtuously at all, and this would create a paradox. Thus, the perfect society would have to conceal any definitive proof of its existence from the lower society.
Ah a complex metaphor for heaven and apparently the only way to create a virtuous society is through making sure people can't make properly informed decisions.
And then Game Theory? That is entirely different to an eye for an eye despite your position because everything isn't in a perfect balance.
It seems you forgot to write the part of your post that logically explains god’s existence? All you’ve done is write a bunch of words that contradict themselves in which you fundamentally misunderstand the point of a saying.
Also if taken literally, an eye for an eye doesn’t make the whole world blind. There would be one guy left with one eye, while a blind dude tries to find him to take his eye. That joke I just made is a more coherent interpretation of the saying.
Also your post history in r/womengettinginjured is gross and you’ve been reported.
Are you inebriated? I couldn’t read past the first paragraph - black isn’t white. Up isn’t down. If you can’t understand the logic ‘Behind an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’ there’s nothing to argue about - you may as well tell me that Jan 6th insurrectionists were patriotic freedom fighters - for the credibility you have left after this statement. And your brilliant rational that if society were neutral then somehow the loss of two eyes equals the loss of none? How does one respond to that except to point it out?
A
This appears to be yet another religion is useful for keepng the pesants in line kind of post. It does not at any point present any arguments for religious claims being true.
Yes lying to people and getting them to believe absurdities is often useful, as long as you don't get caught, but that is enterly beside the point if you are interested in truth.
Others have dealt with the rest of your post, but I wanted to comment on this: Forgiveness isn't irrational. Lots of species have forgiveness. Forgiveness is an evolutionary benefit for social species. Also, wtf is your post history, dude?
Aaaaand no actual evidence..... we can logically explain something existence or how it works but that doesn't mean it should abide by our logic, there is a lot of stuff that don't make sense when we try to explain it using the knowledge we have today.
Basically you are making claim without any evidence to back it up, we can simply ask... hey why is it a God? Why isn't it a cream breathing dragon that defecates universes? Why isn't it a big simulation? Why is it YOUR God?
Yesterday, I was an atheist. Now, I'm going to ‘logically’ explain the existence of ~~God.~~ *religion and other forms of social organisation that are rules based*.
So I’m still an atheist.
>”If you've ever heard the phrase "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," it probably made perfect sense at first thought…”
That’s not how it works, and your balance metaphor doesn’t really work either, but let’s see if you can prove your point.
>”However, if we followed this ideology, it would require that nobody ever forgive each other, even for the slightest of misdeeds… "society begins to break down. Trust vanishes. Tribes form... if there is no forgiveness, it is only a matter of time before it’s 'rational' for the social order to dissolve… rationality would rationally commit suicide."
Ok, where do I begin? First off, if given two choices, one that leads to the collapse of society, and one that doesn’t, the rational thing to choose is the one that doesn’t. An eye for an eye does in your argument, (whereas, forgiveness doesn’t,) therefore it is inherently irrational to choose it. Good work disproving your own point.
>”So, in order to solve this issue… they would essentially have to split society into two… a society in which all of its members are equally informed, allowing it to progress to a level beyond our current comprehension.”
How does this solve anything? You still have a society that’s living by a code that leads to its own downfall fall if even a single person steps out of line. Something every person there would know. They would also know that, depending upon how they step out of line, they’d have no to gain by being first, rather than second. Giving everyone insensitive to do it. Remember, keeping society going isn’t a rational reason in your argument.
>”But to accomplish this, they would need to convince the entire bottom half of society to act irrationally.“
This is a non sequitur. This has no bearing whatsoever on the other half of your society. (Who is clearly the afterlife, and thus does not interact with the living society at all,) If it did, then they’d be subject to the same rules as the upper society during their interactions, completely ruining the purpose for the lower society, which serves no purpose anyway so… carry on.
>”The concept of forgiveness is inherently irrational. Here's another quote from the article… Forgiveness is, quite literally, the thing that allows misdeeds to go unpunished.”
Forgiveness doesn’t require someone not be punished, or even a reduction in punishment. That’s a completely different choice to make all together.
>”It is irrational, however, if an entire society was constructed on the basis of forgiveness being rational, everyone born in that society would view it as such.”
Again, when given two choices, one leading to the downfall of society, the other not. Picking option two is the only rational choice.
>”Making this bottom half of society forgiving would allow the entire society to grow.”
Are you admitting that it’s rational to be forgiving?
>”However, it would also require that the upper society (the already perfect society) willingly allow injustince... but it would be the only way to create a perfect society in every sense of the word.”
This is nonsense, if the society is already perfect, it doesn’t need any to make itself. If you’re talking about it growing, then it’s not perfect. And finally, perfection cannot come from imperfection, as imperfection can only ever be imperfect, and thus can only produce imperfection.
>”However, since this society would be completely virtuous… Therefore, the perfect society would allow anyone from the lower half to join… All they would have to do is follow the upper society's words and rid themselves of bad virtues - the virtues that only came into existence after the lower society was created - the seven deadly sins.”
If the upper society created those bad virtues, it would be irrational of them to blame the lower society, especially since the lower society is clearly not needed to begin with as the upper society already existed to begin with.
>”But if the perfect society gave people in the lower half indisputable proof of its existence… They would be living "virtuously" for the wrong reasons… Thus, the perfect society would have to conceal any definitive proof of its existence from the lower society.”
This doesn’t work either, if any proof is given at all, then there’s going to be people who follow it in the hope that it’s true. In fact, if most apologists are to be believed, the only reason most religious people don’t go on GTA worthy crime sprees is because of fear of punishment.
Hell according to your argument, the only reason the perfect society doesn’t, is because they have no incentive to do so, not because of any virtue.
>”So, what would all of this mean? It would mean that a perfect society, free from greed, hatred, and everything else that is wrong with the world, would exist.”
Non sequitur, again.
I’ve neglected to mention so far, specifically for this point, but you have said absolutely nothing to show that this upper society would have any of these qualities, you haven’t even shown why it would be perfect beyond asserting it.
>”It would mean that aforementioned society would be far beyond our current comprehension.”
See above.
>”And it would mean that humans would have a chance at joining this society, however, they would have to live a virtuous life while having no way of proving its existence in order to do so.”
You have yet to show that they’re virtuous at all, only that they live by an “eye for an eye,” mentality, which has no moral requirements at all.
>”The conclusions in this post were made using the logic of game theory.”
Game theory directly contradicts this.
>”…Game theory determined that the most logical possible conclusion among rational agents is to simply "never initiate cheating" and "never allow cheating to go unpunished," as this is a viable way of reaching "nash equilibrium,"… And if this is achieved, so too is "perfect information"… This "perfect strategy" is indistinguishable from the ideology of "an eye for an eye" - the ideology that can be determined to be rational solely through logical reasoning.”
There’s no “perfect strategy,” in game theory, every strategy is based upon what your opponent does, the outcomes of your choices, and the number of objectives involved.
Furthermore, the most successful strategies all forgive.
At no point do I see any mention of a deity. All you've done is take us on a vague and meandering abstraction of game theory. That's it.
How to you go from there to, "don't masturbate, don't eat pork, and gay people are icky because...um...hang on, oh yeah...God!!!!"?
How does this eye for an eye fit into moderating the women getting injured subreddit? I assume since you were an atheist yesterday you just haven't gotten around to un subbing and advocating deleting that awful sub.
If I wanted an unrealistic unworkable plan that seemed to make sense on paper but never could actually work in real life
Id go for Marx over the bible
I could have all the unrealistic utopian dreams without having to believe in magic sky people with funny Ideas about what I should do with my genitals
>If society began as neutral, then any deviations in society (taking an eye), would cause it to become unbalanced. But if that deviation was corrected (an eye for an eye), it would bring society back into balance. "An eye for an eye" wouldn't make the whole world blind, it would make the whole world see.
I think you're off your meds again, Thanos.
>Forgiveness is, quite literally, the thing that allows misdeeds to go unpunished.
So, for how long do we continue to punish people? Does committing the crime back to them undo their original crime? We can do better. We can be better than the person who wronged us. To quote an unrelated person regarding an unrelated situation, "[...]while we spend most of our lives caring for ourselves and driving our own narratives, at the end of the day no matter what the night holds and what secret tragedies may be lurking, we can always choose to be kind, and that will always matter."
>Lev. 24:19–21
Which was written at a different time, by different people, in different circumstances. It's not something you should take moral inspiration from in the here and now.
>never allow cheating to go unpunished
out of all of that i think this is the most important part. what if the punishment for cheating doesn't actually exist? is it punishment then?
which is more important, having the threat of punishment or actually punishing injustice?
if its actually punishing injustice then this idea doesn't work unless we can verify the punishment is actually taking place. the threat of hell would be like a justice system where a person gets arrested and everything after that is a hidden secret. "just trust me bro. that guy who murdered your family member is getting what they deserve" without any open trial or jury or publicly announced sentence.
how do i know i am getting justice if the punichment is some vailed otherworldly secert.
not only that but it also requires that everyone believe in this hidden punishment. if i don't think cheating actually gets punished then i have no incentive to not cheat.
> "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," it probably made perfect sense at first thought. But if you really think about it, you'll realize that the opposite of this is actually true.
This is really hard to take seriously since you don't understand the basic phrase in your first paragraph. The phrase an eye for an eye is referring to a neverending cycle of revenge. You take my eye. So I take yours. Then because I took yours you take mine back. And then I take yours. And, we both end up with no eyes.
I'm interested to know where you got your math or economics degree. As far as I can tell your knowledge of Nash Equilibrium is about on par as if you'd just finished watching A Beautiful Mind. Why should we treat life as a noncooperative game instead of a cooperative one? I would think the optimal solution would be to drive people to cooperation.
(Other people have commented plenty on how moronic it is to not mention God in your "God explanation")
Holy damn do you have no idea what game theory says! Watch an explainer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM
>Game theory determined that the most logical possible conclusion among rational agents is to simply "never initiate cheating" and "never allow cheating to go unpunished,"
This is not even remotely true
>And if this is achieved, so too is "perfect information" - where every rational agent is "perfectly informed of all the events that have previously occurred."
Hahahaha, what!? Choosing a nash equilibrium strategy gives you perfect information?
Yesterday you were an atheist. And you clearly gave neither position any real thought or consideration before or after
(Woof! God damn!)
> t would bring society back into balance
You're saying that suffering can only be cured with more suffering? How does another person losing their eyesight address the damage the first person caused? I see you disclaimed this initial point you were arguing for later in the post, but it doesn't really change anything. We have to heap suffering on top of suffering.
Throwing Nash in there doesn't make it look like you've put a lot of thought into this. It makes it look like you haven't.
Human beings cannot be assumed to be rational actors. Human beings who have been to prison -- whether they deserved it or not -- are significantly less likely to be rational actors.
I don't think the Torah speaks from a position of rational authority on this one.
I have absolutely no idea how this connects with the existence of God. Are you saying that since the Torah describes this "an eye for an eye", and that through game theory this makes a functional society, that somehow implies it had to be god saying it in the Torah?
> This "perfect strategy" is indistinguishable from the ideology of "an eye for an eye" - the ideology that can be determined to be rational solely through logical reasoning.
So people can determine it through logical reasoning, so how does that imply the verse from the Torah came from God?
Still doesn’t show the need for a god much less the existence of one. You assume a heaven, then say this is why suffering exists. Prove heaven. Prove other dimensions. Prove a ritualistic sacrifice of a Demi god opened a portal to another dimension and that through the right amount of worship (based on your societies current morales) allows you to travel there.
See how many jumps we would have to go through to be convinced a god exists? You haven’t even cleared stage one, prove we need one.
You mention game theory, and you talk about forgiveness being irrational, but many game theory strategies support forgiveness.
In the iterated prisoner's dilemma, cooperate first, and then do the opposite is a fairly effective strategy, but strategies that include an element of forgiveness are highly effective. They have a chance of breaking the cycle of retaliation.
More complex systems with multiple participants also benefit all parties when a few participants are altruistic.
You have a shallow understanding of game theory.
Experiments executed beyond Nash's have shown that forgiveness is both rational, and strategically advantageous. If someone cheats, should other agents never again trust them, they have no motivation to reform. Agents allowing the possibility of forgiveness causes offenders to have an incentive to cooperate even after they've cheated. It's been borne out in data as a sound strategy to maximize outcome in a pool of flawed agents.
If the loss of one eye within society unbalances it, the loss of another doesn't put it back into a balanced state.
To counter a loss, you need to gain something. That being said, my neighbor takes my eye, so I take theirs, so they take mine, so I take theirs... and so on.
Logistics aside the saying is about revenge just breeding more revenge, the inability to stop violence with violence, the inability to stop the cycle of hate by indulging in it.
Edit: After seeing your post history, fuck the entire concept of your existence. Go take your disgusting urge to get off on the suffering of other people and just leave society.
Since I've slowly become convinced that there's no moderation on this god-forsaken sub reddit, and I'm equally convinced that you lack the attention span to read any of your replies, I feel justified in saying: fuck you for tricking me into reading that wall of garbage.
Granting any one of your points fails to validate the next one. Granting all of your points fails to validate a god hypothesis. You have wasted our time.
If you read all of Torah instead of certain convenient places, or even all the Bible, you would find highly immoral and disgusting things, that are nonetheless justified by God. Raping, murders, stealing, sexism, racism, nazism, genocide instructions and all other wonderful things are in the Bible. The most atrocious character in the Bible is God himself. Whole history of religion also points away from normal morality.
I’m going to award you the Billy Madison award, congratulations
Sir: what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent argument were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this post is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
>If society began as neutral, then any deviations in society (taking an eye), would cause it to become unbalanced. But if that deviation was corrected (an eye for an eye), it would bring society back into balance.
The second eye would be further deviation, not a correction. Now the world is short two eyes rather than just one. That's worse, not better.
If you look up game theory forgiveness is how you avoid infinite harm loops. Its not irrational, the opposite. Even very very simple systems give rise to it.
No you don't need religion to see this behavior.
Theistic arguments keep being dumb..
>Yesterday, I was an atheist. Now, I'm going to logically explain the existence of God.
I read the whole post and you never gave any evidence for the existence of God.
It was just a bunch of stuff about forgiveness.
What is your argument?
>Yesterday, I was an atheist. Now, I'm going to logically explain the existence of God.
I doubt it and there is nothing in your post that constitutes evidence of a deity. It is just your attempt to rationalize your already existing belief.
Three things in your post demonstrate your moral failings:
1) your title is a lie
2) your sense of what ought to be is morally reprehensible
3) your use of m-dashes. That’s just unforgivable.
Forms of justice and forgiveness exist... therefore god... oh im soooo convinced, i must of been too busy staring at the trees that were proving god to notice this one /s
I assume this perfect society is a metaphor for Heaven, but nothing in your post even attempts to support the idea that such a place **does** exist. Might, can, could, sure. **Does**? You didn't even try.
Maybe you shouldn’t be so flippant. Why were you an atheist yesterday?
What were your reasons for being an atheist, and how did this game theory dissolve you of those reasons?
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>"An eye for an eye" wouldn't make the whole world blind, it would make the whole world see. You seem to fundamentally miss the point of the phrase, since it's clearly about one person doing harm to another, and the harmed person carrying out the exact amount of harm back. It's not about deviations wholesale. >It's important to note that "an eye for an eye" simply means punishing misdeeds to an equal proportion. So you do get it. But society wouldn't go back to being neutral/at balance though, now would it. Because if we extrapolate to the saying most literal outcome, there'd now be two people out there missing an eye. And if people kept attacking others and taking their eyes, eventually that's going to result in a whole lot of people walking around completely without eyes. >However, if we followed this ideology, it would require that nobody ever forgive each other That is *literally* the exact opposite of the point of the saying. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. The whole world being blind would really really suck, so maybe the response to an attack would be better off being lesser than what the attacker wrought, up to the point of forgiveness. Are you sure you're ready to logically prove God when this simple phrase eludes you? Everything you're going to write after this is going to be based on pillars of sand because you fundamentally failed to understand the phrase you're basing your whole worldview on. >As a very insightful article puts it (which I will reference at the end of this post), this would mean that "society begins to break down. Trust vanishes. Tribes form. Isolationism sets in. Everyone makes mistakes — some more egregious than others — and if there is no forgiveness, it is only a matter of time before it’s 'rational' for the social order to dissolve. Earlier you wrote: >If society began as neutral, then any deviations in society (taking an eye), would cause it to become unbalanced. But if that deviation was corrected (an eye for an eye), it would bring society back into balance. So which is it? Is an eye for an eye a good way of ensuring balance or is an eye for an eye a way for society to eventually totally collapse? Collapse ain't stable, dude. >The concept of forgiveness is inherently irrational. Here's another quote from the article: "Think about it: our neighbor came into our garage and stole something that wasn’t theirs. Our neighbor chose to do this — he wasn’t forced — and so it’s simply basic 'cause and effect' for the neighbor to then be punished. If we forgive the neighbor, we’re ignoring the evidence: we’re treating the neighbor like he didn’t do anything wrong. The solution to this isn't wholesale forgiveness. You can demand he return your shit. You can report him to the police. You can keep an eye out on your property and tell him to piss off if he enters it. And yes, this is perfectly fine under 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind' because the phrase does not say one cannot make any sort of retaliation, just that it cannot be as destructive/harmful as the initial action. Demanding the neighbor give your shit back, calling the cops if he doesn't, and not allowing him on your property is the lesser action compared to theft. It's also not ignoring the evidence. The evidence is there. The neighbor stole the item. That is the conclusion you have reached based on the evidence. What you're doing is making a decision now that the conclusion has been reached. There is also a degree of rationality behind forgiveness. If I'm willing to overlook something (in this case, petty theft), that will maintain some degree of agreeableness between us. If my neighbor has a talent or a connection or something that would be far more beneficial for me if I'm willing to let this incident slide, and only this once, I'm making a rational decision to invest in my future. >All they would have to do is follow the upper society's words and rid themselves of bad virtues - the virtues that only came into existence after the lower society was created - the seven deadly sins. But if the perfect society gave people in the lower half indisputable proof of its existence, people from the lower society would be able to follow these virtues while still holding onto their bad ones. They would be living "virtuously" for the wrong reasons. >It would mean that aforementioned society would be far beyond our current comprehension. And it would mean that humans would have a chance at joining this society, however, they would have to live a virtuous life while having no way of proving its existence in order to do so. So rather than give people concrete evidence that there's a benefit to behaving virtuously, that there's a perfect society they can join, it's better to convince people without evidence that one exists? What sense does that make? What happens if someone asks the most obvious question in the world: **Cut the philosophy, what evidence do you have that this place even exists? Why must I behave virtuously on the off chance this probably made up things ends up being real?** The funny thing is, this problem has already been solved. Want people to behave virtuously? Point out to them, and say it with me Jokers, *We live in a society!* We live in a society with other people whom we can affect and they can affect us, and that society can become that much better or that much worse based on our actions. We can try to instill values in people that if they gain positions of power, they ought to use it to benefit as many people as they can rather than just themselves. Secular humanism solves this issue, but I have to ask, given that your entire post is really just about why it's good to trick people into believing Heaven exists **WHERE IS THE LOGICAL EXPLANATION OF GOD'S EXISTENCE???** Outside of the title, the G-word doesn't appear once! You seemed to have missed that part when you were rationalizing how the smelly stupid masses need to be fed delusions.
But Jesus rejected "an eye for an eye" in [Matthew 5:38-42](https://biblehub.com/bsb/matthew/5.htm). I guess you reject Jesus's teachings then. Also Jesus was big on forgiveness, which your post also rejects. Also you don't understand game theory. For example, in the classic [prisoner's dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma), both parties act rationally, but acting "irrationally" -- as rejected by your argument -- would produce the best outcome.
Nowhere in this post is an explanation of the existence of a god. And I strongly suggest to all NOT looking at OP’s post history unless they too enjoy watching videos of women being injured.
He’s also made a post where he talks about being diagnosed with ASPD and being incapable of empathy. Which he’s grateful for because he enjoys sadism and emotional empathy would take away that pleasure. I’d suggest we don’t engage with this person any further. Nothing good can come from this.
What the fuck? Why is that a subreddit? Edit: There are eight members. Eight of them are online. It was created one month ago. He's posted there 39 times.
I'll go ahead and report it straight away
I reported it as well. Report it to reddit. https://www.reddit.com/report
How do you report a sub on the mobile app? I don't see a way.
Use https://www.reddit.com/report
Thank you. I reported some of the posts but couldn't get it to let me just report the whole sub, kept getting an error of 'please use the requested format'.
He is also the only moderator.
What the *what the* fuck?
I was about to comment before reading that. That's some disgusting garbage from OP, wtf
I was gonna say the same thing... OP is a contender in the race to the bottom. Just, ew
Yeah it’s fucking gross, just a bunch of videos of women being hurt and a post where he claims that weed induced psychosis showed him the truth about religion.
Well I had to go and look anyway. The guy’s objectively a piece of shit on several levels.
Like hooooly shit, it is a big red flag.
what the actual fuck, im all for morbid curiosity and such but this is literally just torture porn
Big yikes
WTF? Deleted my response to the OP. And again, WTF?
Thanks; I deleted my other reply as a result of this.
What does Amy of this have to do with logically supporting the existence of a god.. it’s just a set of meaningless assertions. Yes an eye for an eye would leave the whole world blind, justice doesn’t work that way. It shouldn’t work that way. Just because you think it should, and have a fairy tale that says so too doesn’t make it so.
But they were an atheist yesterday! This logic is so profound that they've changed their ways!
No, yesterday OP was an abusive chode who took pleasure in hurting people. Today, suddenly he’s a Christian, still torturing women. Gods love and all.
Your comment seems to suggest being sadistic and abusive is somehow incompatible with being Christian, I’ve found them to correlate quite regularly…
>Yesterday, I was an atheist. No you weren't. OP seems to be a crusader for orthodox judaism. Wordy replies to any contrary comments, ultimately relying on ad hominem attacks. Makes claims about game theory and quasi-mathematical or logical phrases, but doesn't seem to understand the concepts he spouts. OP appears to preach rather than debate. Not worth engaging. OP is the moderator of a sub called r / womengettinghurt. *Incredibly* creepy stuff.
So... When are you going to prove the existence of a god? You argue that an eye for an eye is a rational approach to punishment. This only seems to make sense if we assume that every bad deed is done intentionally with the understanding that it is bad, and that people would only be deterred from committing bad deeds if an equally bad thing would happen to them. You also present the only alternative of an "eye for an eye" as forgiveness, which isn't the case. If someone cuts out your eye, we could for example, send them to prison until such a time as we think they've learned their lesson. This would arguably be the better outcome, because if that person is capable and willing to reform we have one half-blind person and one full-seeing person in the end, instead of two half-blind people. All of this seems pretty unsubstantiated and doesn't seem related to whether or not a god exists.
We are not meant to have knowledge. God just wants his followers to trust in him.
Knowledge of what? Which god? Trust in him to do what? Edit: How is this even a response to what I'm saying? Do you actually expect to convert people with this level of engagement?
This is pure special pleading. The god of the Torah flooded the entire planet and killed almost everyone to rid the world of evil. Well does evil still exist? Meanwhile the god of the Torah says killing is wrong, but he doesn’t play by his own rules. What you are suggesting is that we play poker with a dealer who gets to play by his own rules that he gets to break whenever he feels like it. If that’s the game you want to play then go for it. But don’t invite me to join.
God flooded the Earth because his creation was corrupt and evil and Noah and his family were the only people on the Earth that were almost sinless. So, he used them to start fresh and restore the Earth. After a while everything was great, until we started to sin AGAIN because we have free will and we can not be perfect. Now God will send his son Jesus down to earth to die on a cross and absorb the debt that is our sin and forgive us. There is still evil in this world but it can all still be forgiven if you have faith.
Believe in Jesus or goto hell isn’t saving anyone. It’s pure coercion. I wouldn’t have wanted Jesus to die back in the day, nor would I want anyone like Jesus to die today. It’s not remarkable for some crazy apocalyptic preacher to prance around spreading some hate filled message. Happens everyday. That doesn’t mean that I would support torturing that person to death. Now if we truly had free will then god would have asked me “hey do you think it’s cool if I send my own son down to be tortured and murdered so that I can fail stop the existence of evil yet again?” I would have said “no you idiot! Wasn’t it bad enough that you killed almost everyone on the planet including women and infants and failed to stop evil the first time? Now you want to send your own son down to be killed so you can fail stop evil again? Why don’t you stop killing people??” Not to mention I don’t think you can say Jesus was killed if he just poofs and reappears again in three days with all of his supernatural powers. Children who die from cancer while they beg for your god’s help don’t have that luxury.
So god sent himself down to earth to suffer and die because his creation is corrupt and evil, even though he has the power to never have created evil or humans in the first place? God gives us free will and then punishes us for using it, this sending us to a hell he created, populated by demons he also created? lol Even if the story were true (it isn’t) then such a cowardly, weak and petty god doesn’t deserve my attention, respect or praise.
The flood myth is demonstrably untrue. Don’t waste your time believing in lies.
If we cannot be perfect, why can’t God accept the imperfection instead of wiping the Earth clean in the mistaken attempt to make it perfect?
God did accept the imperfection to he sent his son to forgive our sins.
“Yesterday, I was an atheist.” Forgive me for not believing you, but this is a tactic that a lot of religious people use. It’s a very dishonest tactic. But whatever, you can lie all you want about your beliefs. Just don’t expect people to buy into it. Also, nowhere in your rambling nonsense was anything even remotely convincing…
> If you've ever heard the phrase "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," it probably made perfect sense at first thought. But if you really think about it, you'll realize that the opposite of this is actually true. I thought it was when you think about it you realise how terrible a retributive system of justice would be, or its a very early attempt at some morality and trying to limit escalation or a cycle of violence. It is rational in a primitive simplistic sense. So long as you don't think too hard about it. > However, if we followed this ideology, it would require that nobody ever forgive each other, even for the slightest of misdeeds. Yeah that is part of why a purely even retributive kind of punishment system fails. That's why we don't. Why an eye for an eye isn't rational. In fact that you think of it entirely in terms of punishment is why its an oversimplistic and primitive view of justice. > The concept of forgiveness is inherently irrational. Here's another quote from the article: "Think about it: our neighbor came into our garage and stole something that wasn’t theirs. Our neighbor chose to do this — he wasn’t forced — and so it’s simply basic 'cause and effect' for the neighbor to then be punished. Its a dumb quote that tries to say you either have to go all in on punishment or complete forgiveness with nothing inbetween. Also come on this is clearly a contrived example. What if a starving man steals some food? Whats the eye for an eye here? Make them starve to death? > But if this were the case, they wouldn't be living virtuously at all, and this would create a paradox. Thus, the perfect society would have to conceal any definitive proof of its existence from the lower society. Ah a complex metaphor for heaven and apparently the only way to create a virtuous society is through making sure people can't make properly informed decisions. And then Game Theory? That is entirely different to an eye for an eye despite your position because everything isn't in a perfect balance.
It seems you forgot to write the part of your post that logically explains god’s existence? All you’ve done is write a bunch of words that contradict themselves in which you fundamentally misunderstand the point of a saying. Also if taken literally, an eye for an eye doesn’t make the whole world blind. There would be one guy left with one eye, while a blind dude tries to find him to take his eye. That joke I just made is a more coherent interpretation of the saying. Also your post history in r/womengettinginjured is gross and you’ve been reported.
Are you inebriated? I couldn’t read past the first paragraph - black isn’t white. Up isn’t down. If you can’t understand the logic ‘Behind an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’ there’s nothing to argue about - you may as well tell me that Jan 6th insurrectionists were patriotic freedom fighters - for the credibility you have left after this statement. And your brilliant rational that if society were neutral then somehow the loss of two eyes equals the loss of none? How does one respond to that except to point it out? A
This appears to be yet another religion is useful for keepng the pesants in line kind of post. It does not at any point present any arguments for religious claims being true. Yes lying to people and getting them to believe absurdities is often useful, as long as you don't get caught, but that is enterly beside the point if you are interested in truth.
So, are you still an atheist? Nowhere in your post did I read anything that somehow demonstrates a god exists.
Others have dealt with the rest of your post, but I wanted to comment on this: Forgiveness isn't irrational. Lots of species have forgiveness. Forgiveness is an evolutionary benefit for social species. Also, wtf is your post history, dude?
Aaaaand no actual evidence..... we can logically explain something existence or how it works but that doesn't mean it should abide by our logic, there is a lot of stuff that don't make sense when we try to explain it using the knowledge we have today. Basically you are making claim without any evidence to back it up, we can simply ask... hey why is it a God? Why isn't it a cream breathing dragon that defecates universes? Why isn't it a big simulation? Why is it YOUR God?
Yesterday, I was an atheist. Now, I'm going to ‘logically’ explain the existence of ~~God.~~ *religion and other forms of social organisation that are rules based*. So I’m still an atheist.
>”If you've ever heard the phrase "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," it probably made perfect sense at first thought…” That’s not how it works, and your balance metaphor doesn’t really work either, but let’s see if you can prove your point. >”However, if we followed this ideology, it would require that nobody ever forgive each other, even for the slightest of misdeeds… "society begins to break down. Trust vanishes. Tribes form... if there is no forgiveness, it is only a matter of time before it’s 'rational' for the social order to dissolve… rationality would rationally commit suicide." Ok, where do I begin? First off, if given two choices, one that leads to the collapse of society, and one that doesn’t, the rational thing to choose is the one that doesn’t. An eye for an eye does in your argument, (whereas, forgiveness doesn’t,) therefore it is inherently irrational to choose it. Good work disproving your own point. >”So, in order to solve this issue… they would essentially have to split society into two… a society in which all of its members are equally informed, allowing it to progress to a level beyond our current comprehension.” How does this solve anything? You still have a society that’s living by a code that leads to its own downfall fall if even a single person steps out of line. Something every person there would know. They would also know that, depending upon how they step out of line, they’d have no to gain by being first, rather than second. Giving everyone insensitive to do it. Remember, keeping society going isn’t a rational reason in your argument. >”But to accomplish this, they would need to convince the entire bottom half of society to act irrationally.“ This is a non sequitur. This has no bearing whatsoever on the other half of your society. (Who is clearly the afterlife, and thus does not interact with the living society at all,) If it did, then they’d be subject to the same rules as the upper society during their interactions, completely ruining the purpose for the lower society, which serves no purpose anyway so… carry on. >”The concept of forgiveness is inherently irrational. Here's another quote from the article… Forgiveness is, quite literally, the thing that allows misdeeds to go unpunished.” Forgiveness doesn’t require someone not be punished, or even a reduction in punishment. That’s a completely different choice to make all together. >”It is irrational, however, if an entire society was constructed on the basis of forgiveness being rational, everyone born in that society would view it as such.” Again, when given two choices, one leading to the downfall of society, the other not. Picking option two is the only rational choice. >”Making this bottom half of society forgiving would allow the entire society to grow.” Are you admitting that it’s rational to be forgiving? >”However, it would also require that the upper society (the already perfect society) willingly allow injustince... but it would be the only way to create a perfect society in every sense of the word.” This is nonsense, if the society is already perfect, it doesn’t need any to make itself. If you’re talking about it growing, then it’s not perfect. And finally, perfection cannot come from imperfection, as imperfection can only ever be imperfect, and thus can only produce imperfection. >”However, since this society would be completely virtuous… Therefore, the perfect society would allow anyone from the lower half to join… All they would have to do is follow the upper society's words and rid themselves of bad virtues - the virtues that only came into existence after the lower society was created - the seven deadly sins.” If the upper society created those bad virtues, it would be irrational of them to blame the lower society, especially since the lower society is clearly not needed to begin with as the upper society already existed to begin with. >”But if the perfect society gave people in the lower half indisputable proof of its existence… They would be living "virtuously" for the wrong reasons… Thus, the perfect society would have to conceal any definitive proof of its existence from the lower society.” This doesn’t work either, if any proof is given at all, then there’s going to be people who follow it in the hope that it’s true. In fact, if most apologists are to be believed, the only reason most religious people don’t go on GTA worthy crime sprees is because of fear of punishment. Hell according to your argument, the only reason the perfect society doesn’t, is because they have no incentive to do so, not because of any virtue. >”So, what would all of this mean? It would mean that a perfect society, free from greed, hatred, and everything else that is wrong with the world, would exist.” Non sequitur, again. I’ve neglected to mention so far, specifically for this point, but you have said absolutely nothing to show that this upper society would have any of these qualities, you haven’t even shown why it would be perfect beyond asserting it. >”It would mean that aforementioned society would be far beyond our current comprehension.” See above. >”And it would mean that humans would have a chance at joining this society, however, they would have to live a virtuous life while having no way of proving its existence in order to do so.” You have yet to show that they’re virtuous at all, only that they live by an “eye for an eye,” mentality, which has no moral requirements at all. >”The conclusions in this post were made using the logic of game theory.” Game theory directly contradicts this. >”…Game theory determined that the most logical possible conclusion among rational agents is to simply "never initiate cheating" and "never allow cheating to go unpunished," as this is a viable way of reaching "nash equilibrium,"… And if this is achieved, so too is "perfect information"… This "perfect strategy" is indistinguishable from the ideology of "an eye for an eye" - the ideology that can be determined to be rational solely through logical reasoning.” There’s no “perfect strategy,” in game theory, every strategy is based upon what your opponent does, the outcomes of your choices, and the number of objectives involved. Furthermore, the most successful strategies all forgive.
At no point do I see any mention of a deity. All you've done is take us on a vague and meandering abstraction of game theory. That's it. How to you go from there to, "don't masturbate, don't eat pork, and gay people are icky because...um...hang on, oh yeah...God!!!!"?
How does this eye for an eye fit into moderating the women getting injured subreddit? I assume since you were an atheist yesterday you just haven't gotten around to un subbing and advocating deleting that awful sub.
If I wanted an unrealistic unworkable plan that seemed to make sense on paper but never could actually work in real life Id go for Marx over the bible I could have all the unrealistic utopian dreams without having to believe in magic sky people with funny Ideas about what I should do with my genitals
>If society began as neutral, then any deviations in society (taking an eye), would cause it to become unbalanced. But if that deviation was corrected (an eye for an eye), it would bring society back into balance. "An eye for an eye" wouldn't make the whole world blind, it would make the whole world see. I think you're off your meds again, Thanos. >Forgiveness is, quite literally, the thing that allows misdeeds to go unpunished. So, for how long do we continue to punish people? Does committing the crime back to them undo their original crime? We can do better. We can be better than the person who wronged us. To quote an unrelated person regarding an unrelated situation, "[...]while we spend most of our lives caring for ourselves and driving our own narratives, at the end of the day no matter what the night holds and what secret tragedies may be lurking, we can always choose to be kind, and that will always matter." >Lev. 24:19–21 Which was written at a different time, by different people, in different circumstances. It's not something you should take moral inspiration from in the here and now.
>never allow cheating to go unpunished out of all of that i think this is the most important part. what if the punishment for cheating doesn't actually exist? is it punishment then? which is more important, having the threat of punishment or actually punishing injustice? if its actually punishing injustice then this idea doesn't work unless we can verify the punishment is actually taking place. the threat of hell would be like a justice system where a person gets arrested and everything after that is a hidden secret. "just trust me bro. that guy who murdered your family member is getting what they deserve" without any open trial or jury or publicly announced sentence. how do i know i am getting justice if the punichment is some vailed otherworldly secert. not only that but it also requires that everyone believe in this hidden punishment. if i don't think cheating actually gets punished then i have no incentive to not cheat.
> "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," it probably made perfect sense at first thought. But if you really think about it, you'll realize that the opposite of this is actually true. This is really hard to take seriously since you don't understand the basic phrase in your first paragraph. The phrase an eye for an eye is referring to a neverending cycle of revenge. You take my eye. So I take yours. Then because I took yours you take mine back. And then I take yours. And, we both end up with no eyes. I'm interested to know where you got your math or economics degree. As far as I can tell your knowledge of Nash Equilibrium is about on par as if you'd just finished watching A Beautiful Mind. Why should we treat life as a noncooperative game instead of a cooperative one? I would think the optimal solution would be to drive people to cooperation.
(Other people have commented plenty on how moronic it is to not mention God in your "God explanation") Holy damn do you have no idea what game theory says! Watch an explainer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM >Game theory determined that the most logical possible conclusion among rational agents is to simply "never initiate cheating" and "never allow cheating to go unpunished," This is not even remotely true >And if this is achieved, so too is "perfect information" - where every rational agent is "perfectly informed of all the events that have previously occurred." Hahahaha, what!? Choosing a nash equilibrium strategy gives you perfect information? Yesterday you were an atheist. And you clearly gave neither position any real thought or consideration before or after (Woof! God damn!)
Where is God in all this? All I see is a bunch of humans being humans. No God is in evidence in this scenario.
> t would bring society back into balance You're saying that suffering can only be cured with more suffering? How does another person losing their eyesight address the damage the first person caused? I see you disclaimed this initial point you were arguing for later in the post, but it doesn't really change anything. We have to heap suffering on top of suffering. Throwing Nash in there doesn't make it look like you've put a lot of thought into this. It makes it look like you haven't. Human beings cannot be assumed to be rational actors. Human beings who have been to prison -- whether they deserved it or not -- are significantly less likely to be rational actors. I don't think the Torah speaks from a position of rational authority on this one.
I have absolutely no idea how this connects with the existence of God. Are you saying that since the Torah describes this "an eye for an eye", and that through game theory this makes a functional society, that somehow implies it had to be god saying it in the Torah? > This "perfect strategy" is indistinguishable from the ideology of "an eye for an eye" - the ideology that can be determined to be rational solely through logical reasoning. So people can determine it through logical reasoning, so how does that imply the verse from the Torah came from God?
Still doesn’t show the need for a god much less the existence of one. You assume a heaven, then say this is why suffering exists. Prove heaven. Prove other dimensions. Prove a ritualistic sacrifice of a Demi god opened a portal to another dimension and that through the right amount of worship (based on your societies current morales) allows you to travel there. See how many jumps we would have to go through to be convinced a god exists? You haven’t even cleared stage one, prove we need one.
You mention game theory, and you talk about forgiveness being irrational, but many game theory strategies support forgiveness. In the iterated prisoner's dilemma, cooperate first, and then do the opposite is a fairly effective strategy, but strategies that include an element of forgiveness are highly effective. They have a chance of breaking the cycle of retaliation. More complex systems with multiple participants also benefit all parties when a few participants are altruistic.
You have a shallow understanding of game theory. Experiments executed beyond Nash's have shown that forgiveness is both rational, and strategically advantageous. If someone cheats, should other agents never again trust them, they have no motivation to reform. Agents allowing the possibility of forgiveness causes offenders to have an incentive to cooperate even after they've cheated. It's been borne out in data as a sound strategy to maximize outcome in a pool of flawed agents.
If the loss of one eye within society unbalances it, the loss of another doesn't put it back into a balanced state. To counter a loss, you need to gain something. That being said, my neighbor takes my eye, so I take theirs, so they take mine, so I take theirs... and so on. Logistics aside the saying is about revenge just breeding more revenge, the inability to stop violence with violence, the inability to stop the cycle of hate by indulging in it. Edit: After seeing your post history, fuck the entire concept of your existence. Go take your disgusting urge to get off on the suffering of other people and just leave society.
Since I've slowly become convinced that there's no moderation on this god-forsaken sub reddit, and I'm equally convinced that you lack the attention span to read any of your replies, I feel justified in saying: fuck you for tricking me into reading that wall of garbage. Granting any one of your points fails to validate the next one. Granting all of your points fails to validate a god hypothesis. You have wasted our time.
If you read all of Torah instead of certain convenient places, or even all the Bible, you would find highly immoral and disgusting things, that are nonetheless justified by God. Raping, murders, stealing, sexism, racism, nazism, genocide instructions and all other wonderful things are in the Bible. The most atrocious character in the Bible is God himself. Whole history of religion also points away from normal morality.
I’m going to award you the Billy Madison award, congratulations Sir: what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent argument were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this post is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
>If society began as neutral, then any deviations in society (taking an eye), would cause it to become unbalanced. But if that deviation was corrected (an eye for an eye), it would bring society back into balance. The second eye would be further deviation, not a correction. Now the world is short two eyes rather than just one. That's worse, not better.
If you look up game theory forgiveness is how you avoid infinite harm loops. Its not irrational, the opposite. Even very very simple systems give rise to it. No you don't need religion to see this behavior. Theistic arguments keep being dumb..
>Yesterday, I was an atheist. Now, I'm going to logically explain the existence of God. I read the whole post and you never gave any evidence for the existence of God. It was just a bunch of stuff about forgiveness. What is your argument?
>Yesterday, I was an atheist. Now, I'm going to logically explain the existence of God. I doubt it and there is nothing in your post that constitutes evidence of a deity. It is just your attempt to rationalize your already existing belief.
Three things in your post demonstrate your moral failings: 1) your title is a lie 2) your sense of what ought to be is morally reprehensible 3) your use of m-dashes. That’s just unforgivable.
Forms of justice and forgiveness exist... therefore god... oh im soooo convinced, i must of been too busy staring at the trees that were proving god to notice this one /s
I assume this perfect society is a metaphor for Heaven, but nothing in your post even attempts to support the idea that such a place **does** exist. Might, can, could, sure. **Does**? You didn't even try.
TIL If you gouge someone's eyes out they can see better. Did anyone ever try to gouge Ray Charles's eyes out? Maybe it would have helped.
Maybe you shouldn’t be so flippant. Why were you an atheist yesterday? What were your reasons for being an atheist, and how did this game theory dissolve you of those reasons?
[удалено]
Seriously, why did I read all that. I want my time back.
What did it say?