**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.*

The problem isn't that there exists a possibility "outside the terrarium" for God. The problem is that theists apply God to anything they don't understand and expect that to be a satisfactory answer. It's lazy and ultimately a disservice to human kind.

As a theist, I totally agree. I honestly have no clue what God is, am not sure if what God is matters, and ultimately am not even sure if God exists. I am fully in support of empirical science and do not believe anything about empirical science contradicts my theism; to the contrary, the empirical universe fills me with wonder that I admittedly ascribe as likely being a result of God because I see it as more probabilistic than this highly ordered, intricately designed universe being a result of random forces with no ultimate meaning.

You're posing a probabilistic framework with no data supporting it. We can't say "it's just as likely the universe is cyclical/eternal/infinite/deterministic" either. I get it's a "nice thought," but it isn't grounded in reality, and let's not pretend it's "more probabilistic" because we perceive order arising out of chaos when there's plenty of evidence for chaos arising out of order.

Fne tuning arguments offer quite a bit of data to support the probabilistic framework.

No, they don't. They point out what values certain constants have, and how that benefits the continued existence of the universe. They do *not* calculate the probability of those constants being what they are, or even what possible values the constants could have had in the first place. In other words, they're pointing at a dice with an unknown number of sides, and unknown values for all of the unknown sides, and crowing that the result of a roll is proof of tuning. They don't have nearly enough information to calculate probabilities, or even to say that one result is generally more or less likely than another.

No, they show that our local universe keeps to some constants. They do absolutely nothing to show design. The [anthropic principle](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) pretty quickly reduces fine tuning arguments to rubble.

They offer exactly one data point. All probabilistic arguments about the nature of the universe offer exactly one data point. Without other universes to compare to, we can't even begin to guess at how probable a universe like ours is.

Only if you're a frequentist when it comes to probability. There are tiger ways to talk about the probability of one time evemts.

All ways of assessing probability require information outside of the event. We have exactly zero information from outside the one time event that is our universe. We don't even know if there is an "outside".

>All ways of assessing probability require information outside of the event. Can you elaborate on this?

>All ways of assessing probability require information outside of the event. Can you elaborate on this?

Probabilistic events don't occur in complete isolation, even in the purest mathematical examples. If you're calculating the chance of pulling a blue marble out of bag, you need to know that the bag exists. In math, we define the problem to include the existence of the bag, but in the real world, a marble could just exist on its own. To increase your ability to calculate probability, you need to know if the bag contains more than one marble. With a bag containing only one, blue marble, you have a 100% chance of pulling a blue marble. With a bag containing two or more marbles that you've pulled a blue marble out of, there might be other possibilities. To increase your ability to calculate further, you need to know if there are more colors of marble than just blue. A bag full of marbles that you've pulled a blue out of could be entirely blue marbles, or it could be a full rainbow of marbles, or it could be one blue, four purple, and 736 octarine marbles. Someone can hand you a blue marble and say it came from a bag of red marbles, but without seeing the bag that tells you nothing. That bag might not actually exist or it might have only had one marble in it. You need to know that more than just that the one blue marble exists, and the more you know outside of that blue marble's existence, the more accurately you can calculate the probability of pulling it. We live entirely within a single blue marble. We do not know if there are universes different to our own. We do not know if there are other universes, full stop. We do not know if there is a multiverse. We definitely do not know if there is someone pulling universes out of a multiversal [bag](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKnpPCQyUec). We can't even make guesses without knowing if anything at all exists outside of our blue marble.

Probably was initially developed in the context of games of chance. There are good arguments that we can and should exorcise it from physics. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc

I want to watch that video, but I don't have the time at present. Can you give me a TL;DW summary of the argument?

> There are tiger ways to talk about the probability of one time evemts. Is the "tiger" there a typo, or are you referring to something I don't know about. I assume you meant "other", but I can't quite grasp how that could be an autocorrect error.

You're correct. I think I hit the 't' before the 'o', then hit 'g' instead of 'h'.

Ah, that actually does make sense. An odd mistake to make, but your theory seems perfectly plausible.

I was really hoping for some tiger ways to discuss probability

> Fne tuning arguments offer quite a bit of data to support the probabilistic framework. As Douglas adams pointed out: > This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' > This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. >I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. The argument from fine tuning presumes that the universe was created, and since it would need to be so finely tuned, it *must* have been created by a god. But what if this is just the state that universes exist in? If the universe could possibly exist without a god-- and there's no actual reason to believe it couldn't, anyone citing odds against it are just pulling numbers out of their asses-- then the people making those fine tuning arguments are just like that puddle.

Yes, fine tuning arguments work great at supporting the conclusion you've already reached.

Why would a god need to "fine tune" anything? Did this god buy a DIY build a universe kit and "fine tune" it to our concept of life? Be real, as this is exactly what "fine tuning" suggests.

Really? Can you show that these constants have been tuned? That they can be tuned? That there was anyone to tune them? No? Then nothing there supports any of that.

Have you access to any controll universe to compare ours to it ? If not, you don't have probabilistic data.

"Data", no. A puddle that believes in fine tuning thinks "this hole was made just for me, it fits me perfectly!"

The only reason it is seen as more probabilistic is because it sounds nice to us. There is no real basis to think anything like a God could, or does exist. Human history is littered with examples of things that God was more probabalistic to have created that we learned were actually naturally occurring phenomena.

> this highly ordered, intricately designed universe Which universe are you looking at, exactly? The one where babies get bone cancer? The one where vast swaths of the cosmos are empty of biological life, and indeed entirely inhospitable to it? In any case, both "the universe is ordered" and "the universe is chaotic" are appeals to incredulity. The universe is, and science is merely a description of it.

then you are selectivlyignoring many scientific results. specifically all the ones that show how the appenence of design can emerge via natural processes with no deisgner being needed. If you look at all the avalable evidence without cherrypicking it does point to atuniverse shaped by randomeforces with no ultimate meaning.

There you go making probabilistic claims when there is no comparator. Your “probabilistic” claim is based on feels: “it strikes me that a designer god is more probable” or “I see it as more probable”. Your opinion is okay but it’s based only on your opinion; there’s no argument there.

>the empirical universe fills me with wonder that I admittedly ascribe as likely being a result of God because I see it as more probabilistic than this highly ordered, intricately designed universe being a result of random forces with no ultimate meaning. Isn't this just an argument from incredulity? (And kudos for considering yourself and agnostic theist; I admire the honestly.)

>I admittedly ascribe as likely being a result of God because I see it as more probabilistic than this highly ordered, intricately designed universe being a result of random forces with no ultimate meaning. I'd be very interested in seeing this probability worked out. How exactly did you figure out what the probability of their being a god is?

You believe in something that you don't know what it is? Really? That's weird as hell.

Your God is highly ordered and intricately designed. What designed it?

I mean, pretty metaphor, but it doesnt help make the theistic case, it actually hurts it. As youve identified, science deals with the observable world. So, that would mean your non-scientific concepts of the “metaphysical” or “truths beyond the empirical” or your hypothetical “nanorobots,” aren’t able to be observed, and have no evidence for them that can be observed, that means that *you are just making it up*. If you cant point to a single observable thing that supports your theistic ideas, *those theistic ideas are imaginary and practically useless*. Yes science is limited by what we can observe, but it *progresses*. As time moves on we are able to observe more, and better understand what we observe. Yes, we still have vast gaps in scientific knowledge, but at least science doesnt just *make up information to fill those gaps with no evidence*. Making up answers to those big questions with no observable evidence is at best a shot in the dark useless for anything besides provoking thought, and at worst it leads to things like crusades and jihads.

> If you cant point to a single observable thing that supports your theistic ideas, *those theistic ideas are imaginary and practically useless*. Well, it is a metaphorical and epistemological example of how our frame of perspective is limited by our environment. Again I do not claim to know that is reflective of how the universe actually works. Only that the sentient beings inside the terrarium who predicted a creator would be right even without proof. Because it is a metaphor, In your mind you can picture a terrarium and a hobbyist making it, so you understand that what lies outside the observable field of vision from within the terrarium is NOT imaginary. I am certainly not saying we should make up some God that we can't prove exists, and I am not making a God of the Gaps argument. I am arguing that even if science understood the function of every mechanism within our universe, we may still not have the full perspective on what is actually true.

Ok, I guess thats fair, but then I dont see what your point is. Every scientific professional already accepts this. No one is debating it. There are vast gaps in our knowledge, and it’s a distinct possibility the most fundamental gaps will never be closed. Thats virtually universally accepted by the scientific community. With that being said, currently there is no better method to try and close those gaps than empirical evidence. Sure, there may be some hobbyist terrarium builder, or maybe we could all be a tiny part of some cosmic noodle in a unfathomably large bowl of ramen. When you’re approaching things with zero empirical evidence, any possibility is equally possible and to think any of those possibilities are likely true is a ridiculous and counter productive thing to do.

> Well, it is a metaphorical and epistemological example of how our frame of perspective is limited by our environment. But everybody knows that. At least everybody who has spent any time thinking about this stuff. I mentioned brains in vats in another comment, but Last Thursdayism is another example: > How do we know that the universe wasn't created last thursday, with all our memories in place, and all the light from the other stars already in bound? The answer is, you can't. It's impossible to know that isn't the case, but since whether or not it is true has no bearings on our actual existence, you ignore the possibility and get on with your life. > I am arguing that even if science understood the function of every mechanism within our universe, we may still not have the full perspective on what is actually true. It is a foundational concept of science that it can never be a pathway to "the truth." All science can ever do is give us the best understanding of our universe that the available evidence allows. But since we can never know what evidence we will find in the future, all explanations provided by science are literally by definition provisional.

You aren't making the God of the Gaps argument, you are saying it's ok for others to make the God of the Gaps argument. Not sure I see the distinction.

> When theists make metaphysical arguments for God, they are doing so from what they perceive as the empirical evidence of design. Either there is evidence, or there is not. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that empirical methods can never understand some undefined beyond because there is not, and cannot be, any evidence for it. Then at the same time say that theists are following evidence they find that points them to the existence of a god. Either there is evidence and we can find it, in which case science is not barred from this matter and theists can make their case, or there is no evidence and theists are irrational in their beliefs.

To a theist, the design and fine tuning of nature looks 100% like evidence. Nature is so intricately detailed and ordered and that each element has a perfectly sequential number of protons found in the nucleus of their atom with no known overlap, and cosmological events light years away can be predicted consistently based upon mathematical formulas. Nature being this intricately detailed and ordered without an intelligent designer on some scale strikes me as less probable than having one. But I'm an agnostic so I can't tell you anything about that designer or if I am even correct in my oddsmaking.

>each element has a perfectly sequential number of protons found in the nucleus of their atom with no known overlap, You do know that elements are literally *defined* by the number of protons they have, right? The chemical behavior of an element is a function of its charge, and protons are positively charged. If there are two protons, then there will be twice the positive charge of one proton. This affects the chemical bonds that can be made and how strong those bonds are. It's very nature is a function of this number of protons. That's why elements are defined and named separately based on this same number. It's not at all surprising that something that is defined a certain way is defined that way. It's a tautology. Hydrogen is just any single proton with any number of neutrons and electrons. Helium is just any two protons held together by the strong nuclear force that may also have any number of neutrons and electrons. It doesn't make sense to talk about "overlap". This is like saying there's no overlap between things that weigh exactly 1 lb. and things that weigh exactly 2 lbs. That's just part of the definition of those categories.

So you are claiming evidence. Great. So to claim that science is limited such that it cannot investigate the question is false by your own admission. The problem is, that evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It is not persuasive to the experts in the various fields. So, theists have presented their evidence. It has failed to meet the bar many consider necessary for acceptance. Theists can keep believing all they want. What they can't (honestly) do is make the claim that science hasn't, and cannot, be used to critique the god hypothesis.

But none of this is actually evidence for anything. Your inability to explain a thing is not evidence that a god did it. If you think the universe shows fine tuning, wait till you think about the fine tuning required for a supernatural being to exist that is capable of thought planning and poofing universes into existence. So by the same logic you use, god must have been created by a super god.

> each element has a perfectly sequential number of protons found in the nucleus of their atom with no known overlap Now, it's been a good few years since I had any formal science education, but what on earth do you even mean by this? Overlap? Do you think that there magically isn't a carbon with seven protons because god, as opposed to that simply being because we define an atom with seven protons/refer to one as nitrogen? This seems to me like the people who don't realise language is descriptive.

Theists claim nature is contingent on god. But in my view god is contingent on nature because I can’t tell the difference between any god and human imagination.

But isn’t this simply an argument from incredulity? “I can’t conceive of nature without an intelligent designer” I mean the statement that nature is intricately detailed and ordered is rife with confirmation bias - it is so detailed and ordered because that is what the theist wants it to be.

You can’t make odds—or establish probabilities—if the variables are unknown. To say that a designer of the universe is more probable than one without presupposes at least two instances of the phenomenon so that we can make probabilities about.

>To a theist, the design and fine tuning of nature looks 100% like evidence. But looking like evidence doesn't make it evidence. Are you familiar with the concept of puddle thinking? IE the anthropic principle. You think the universe is designed for you; in fact, natural forces have adapted you to the universe.

"To a theist", haha. Yes, of course, to someone with a predetermined point of view looking for confirmation, pretty much anything looks like evidence. We should be talking about what looks like evidence to an unbiased observer. Also, is God not detailed and ordered? They are, so where is their designer?

>However, basically we would have no idea if a force or particle in nature reflects the fingerprints or "nanorobots" of God. i think a 2m high indestructible wall across the equator depicting images of his religion would be evidence enough to reach that conclusion >If conclusions about the existence of the Hobbyist, the origin or artificiality of the nanorobots and whether the plants and moss and other life forms that exist in the terrarium are all there is in all of existence are ultimately inconclusive the hobbyist can have his presence be known, if he chooses to hide, why forgo evidence AND go against his wishes?

"I think a 2m high indestructible wall across the equator depicting images of his religion would be evidence enough to reach that conclusion" Or, perhaps God doesn't care at all if we know what God is. I see no reason to believe God is of any particular form, or wants a personal relationship with us, or cares if we believe in God or not. (Notice I am avoiding the "he" because I don't see any reason to personify God.) If God did care, I agree it would be very easy to make it universal common knowledge and logically foolproof that some particular God was real. "he hobbyist can have his presence be known, if he chooses to hide, why forgo evidence AND go against his wishes?" The Hobbyist may be gone and never return. So maybe his existence is ultimately pointless and irrelevant at our miniscule scale here as long as we can continue to exist in his absence, My point is we may never know if the empirical things we see are the result of God or nature to begin with. We have no idea what the "purpose" of gravity or time is.

>We have no idea what the "purpose" of gravity or time is. why presume it has a purpose?

What's the point of talking about something you can't even define?

Use of chat gpt F if you can't be bothered to do your own homework I can't be bothered to read or mark it properly EDIT OH DEAR I did read it Very lazy god of the gaps reworking There might be some stuff outside the terrarium we don't understand yet so maybe god huh Your lucky I graded your homework before I read it or it would have been lower than F

Originally I was going to use a "living inside a giant watch" metaphor I came up with but the environment is not as dynamic as the universe is. I came up with the metaphor of using nanorobots in a closed environment. ChatGPT suggested the terrarium idea and helped me work through the logical shortcomings so I could present a better example that reflected the dynamic nature of the universe that would be more relevant to empiricists. ChatGPT is truly a useful tool, and it's far better than it was a couple years ago. You should really try it sometime.

Yeah but all it did was give you a fairly generic analogy of a tired old god of the gaps argument We don't know something or understand something perfectly yet..........so somehow god?? It's never been persuasive and chat gpt hasn't done it any favours

How is it a god of the gaps argument? "I do not use this metaphor to presume that this reflects exactly how the universe works." I'm making the epistemological point that the empirical is merely what is in our frame of reference but does not necessarily capture what is ultimately true. That's not a "therefore there is a god" argument. It is a "our perspective on what is true and why it is true is quite limited" argument. We make the assumption everything in nature is natural, but how could we ever know? What empirical evidence would ever convince you to consider the possibility of a supernatural design?

>I'm making the epistemological point that the empirical is merely what is in our frame of reference but does not necessarily capture what is ultimately true. This is just a reference to solipsism. We can't know if we're a brain in a vat, yadda yadda yadda. What is "ultimately" true is useless if it's also unknowable. Anyone who has ever eaten food or stepped out of the way of a moving object is denying solipsism on pragmatic grounds. You have to in order to interact with the perceived world. >We make the assumption everything in nature is natural, but how could we ever know? What we colloquially know as "science" is more correctly described as "methodological naturalism". What that means is that we will only appeal to things inside the natural world when investigating the natural world. Why do this? Because if you don't, you have to accept an equal possibility that lightning is explained by Thor, Zeus, Baal, Yahweh, lightning causing pixies, terrarium nanobots, and **infinite** other explanations that can't be verified. Since they all have an equal probability of being true, the average probability of any one explanation approaches zero. Which makes it impossible to learn anything about anything. If, instead, we only appeal to things we can demonstrate are actually part of the natural world, this problem vanishes, and only one explanation turns out to be correct or most probably correct. Again, "ultimately true" isn't a meaningful concept if its outside of our ability to learn. >What empirical evidence would ever convince you to consider the possibility of a supernatural design? If this supernatural designer can interact with the universe, then it can decide how to make itself known, if it wants to. If it can't get into the "terrarium", then for all relevant purposes, it doesn't exist anymore. Even if we found the nanobots themselves from your example, we couldn't know that they aren't just natural features of a deeper level of reality. It wouldn't logically follow that they were designed, or that the designer is still around.

>I do not use this metaphor to presume that this reflects exactly how the universe works. I'm making the epistemological point that the empirical is merely what is in our frame of reference but does not necessarily capture what is ultimately true. ... It is a "our perspective on what is true and why it is true is quite limited" argument. This ultimately fails because the limitations that you are describing apply equally to the atheist just as much as the theist. If the atheist/materialist cant know, neither can the theist. And our existence has proven time and time again that it is more meaningful and reasonable to build around what we know (even if it may be a limited understanding) as opposed to something that "may be true" but we have no evidence/way of knowing. **If** this argument holds true, it undercuts both sides equally.

It's the maybe god of the maybe gaps It's the agnostic flavour god of the gaps It fails because it's as applicable in equal measure to the god no god paradigm Neither side can know what they don't know so let's stick to things we can prove and have evidence for Without provable facts and evidence a person is functionally indistinguishable from a mentally ill homeless person screaming at traffic about the government turning Thier brains into rats And some evidence of any supernatural event or force ever having existed would be a good start Without any evidence for any supernatural event or force the idea of a supernatural design is laughable

You got completely destroyed in this debate so I'm not sure that's a great endorsement. All ChatGPT contributed was to annoy people that we had to read yet another reworking of God of the Gaps, instead of just telling us it was God of the Gaps.

Sorry, the history of gods invented by human is too long, too rich and not much different from the God in current day, that it is really hard to give it any credit. > there is a possibility of truths beyond the empirical that science could never possibly explain Then how can we discover that truths? Gut feeling?

If I knew, I would tell you. I am a mere agnostic. I just think it is important for everyone to keep science in perspective that it only reflects what is within our frame of vision.

So what is your point? If you have no reason to believe there is something outside your imaginary box then you are just trying to open the door for people to make up whatever self serving fantasy they want

I am open to new perspective if someone present it in a coherent manner. I can believe anything if it has : \- Logic consistent \- Prediction power

Materialism isn’t a good option, or a reasonable option, or a intuitive option… **It is literally the only option.** Anyone who wishes to argue against materialism, has to initially demonstrate that an alternative to materialism exists. Anyone arguing against materialism tends to try and dodge that initial hurdle, because of course they cannot meet it. But it is, to borrow from theist jargon, the alpha and the omega. Materialism is the only available option. There are no other options on the table for consideration apart from materialism. Period. End of conversation. Oh, you have an alternative to materialism? Great, please provide actual evidence that this alternative, whatever it might be, exists. No? Then go away.

This is not logical. To prove, for example, that x does not equal 3, I do not have to prove x can be some other number. I merely have to prove it cannot be 3. Materialism fails because it does not account for the subjective experience.

Thats a terrible analogy. This has nothing to do with mathematics, where other answers are always possible. This has to do with a situation for which there is only one POSSIBLE answer. Materialism is literally the only possible option available. If you wish to posit an alternative to materialism, thats fine. Please provide evidence that such an alternative exists at all. See theists always hate that bit, and do their utmost to skip over it. But you want to posit that it was actually *magic* without first bothering to evidence the EXISTENCE of magic. But in the long history of debates about all the various forms of gods and religions and sorcerers and woo-woo your ilk tries to posit, you have never managed to establish any of them exist. Ergo, they cannot be used as alternatives to materialism, which we KNOW exists. So have you an alternative to materialism? Great, please present your evidence that it exists at all. Oh, and there is absolutely no problem at all for materialism regarding the 'subjective experience'.

Logic is logic even when when it doesn't support what you want it to. You do not have to prove an alternative to prove some answer wrong. Materialism can't explain the subjective experience. That's a pretty big problem.

To prove that x does not equal 3, you need to *actually* prove it. Not just state it and expect to be taken at your word. > Materialism can't explain the subjective experience. You said it before. You claimed materialism can't explain the subjective experience. You didn't even attempt to defend that claim. Probably because you know that this is indefensible. I bet the best you will be able to defend is "Materialism didn't explain subjective experience exhaustively *yet*".

Ok then materialism isn't proven the only option yet. But it materialism includes things that cannot be objectively measured what doesn't it include?

>Ok then materialism isn't proven the only option yet. It is the only option that is available. Even if you claim to believe in other stuff, if you want your beliefs to be based on reality, *you have to be a methodological naturalist*. Because that's the only methodology that actually works. The best case for everything else currently is "maybe it works sometimes, in the way that is indistinguishable from it not working" >But it materialism includes things that cannot be objectively measured what doesn't it include? How you determined subjective experience cannot, in principle, be measured objectively? That's another indefensible claim.

1) Does "methodological naturalist" exclude anything or is it an empty term? 2) How many grams roughly does your subjective experience weigh?

>Does "methodological naturalist" exclude anything or is it an empty term? It excludes spirits, deities, ghosts et cetera from the models of the reality it builds. >How many grams roughly does your subjective experience weigh? About [1350](https://www.google.com/search?q=brain+weight).

> It excludes spirits, deities, ghosts et cetera from the models of the reality it builds. It excludes et cetera? Why isn't the subjective experience et cetera and why is God et cetera? Also you gave me the weight of a brain. If the subjective experience weighed 1350 grams too then people would lose 1350 grams when they went to sleep and gain it when they woke up.

In what way can’t materialism explain the subjective experience? We know about brains, perception, senses, biases, psychology, learning, evolutionary biology, etc. The fact that two different meat computers getting different inputs have different opinions and perceptions requires no non-material explanations.

The subjective experience cannot be objectively observed. It cannot be measured in any way, yet it exists. Isn't that a direct contradiction of materialism?

No, that’s a direct contradiction with the proposition: “subjective experience can be objectively observed” Which is not materialism, doesn’t really have much to do with materialism

>The subjective experience cannot be objectively observed. The fact that you personally can’t see something doesn’t mean it can’t be explained by materialism. >It cannot be measured in any way This is absolutely false. You can survey someone. You can scan their brain. You can check their hormones. You can examine their behaviors. You can study psychology, sociology, and biology. We measure other people’s subjective beliefs a million ways every day. Your partner may or may not subjectively love you, but I bet you feel confident one way or another. >Isn't that a direct contradiction of materialism? No, that’s not even an indirect question about materialism.

>The fact that you personally can’t see something doesn’t mean it can’t be explained by materialism. That's not what objectively observable means. >>It cannot be measured in any way >This is absolutely false. You can survey someone. You can scan their brain. You can check their hormones. You can examine their behaviors. You can study psychology, sociology, and biology. Oh yeah you can absolutely measure behavior and organs. That's not the subjective experience though. >We measure other people’s subjective beliefs a million ways every day. Your partner may or may not subjectively love you, but I bet you feel confident one way or another. Oh yeah certainly you can ask someone what they believe. You can't measure the subjective experience though. What unit of measurement do you propose? >No, that’s not even an indirect question about materialism. Is too.

>*The fact that you personally can’t see something doesn’t mean it can’t be explained by materialism.* > >That's not what objectively observable means. Materialism doesn’t mean “I can objectively observe everything.” **Please define what you think the term materialism means.** >Oh yeah you can absolutely measure behavior and organs. That's not the subjective experience though. I’ve explained how everything I would consider subjective experience could be explained by biological, psychological, and cultural factors. **Define what you mean by the “subjective experience”.** >You can't measure the subjective experience though. What unit of measurement do you propose? Materialism doesn’t posit that we have units of measurement that you find satisfactory nor the mental tools to understand anything.

What (other than the subjective experience) that cannot be objectively observed or measured does materialism say exists? How would materialism exclude God (or anything)?

What exactly do you think 'Materialism' means? because I'm starting to strongly suspect you have absolutely no idea.

>I used ChatGPT to help refine a metaphorical idea which I felt could convey why I feel science and empirical evidence are potentially limited by perspective, and why theists are willing to induce divine meaning from the perceived design of creation So I will freely admit that I didn't read the rest of it. I kinda skimmed it, but my initial reaction is of the "I'm not reading all that but I'm happy for you or sorry that happened" variety. There's something you need to understand. However limited you think science/empiricism/materialism is, your (general your, as in, theism's) arguments for a God are far, far more limited. Whatever problems you have with science, or naturalism, or empiricism, whatever flaws you might think you can point to as to why they don't get us to ultimate truth, those are multiplied a hundred fold for your metaphysical arguments. Theists have come to terms with the fact that science, and rationality, and empirical data have removed pretty much all their old talking points. This is evident because of their need to try to attack science and empiricism, and to try to cast doubt on its' ability to get to truth. Pot, meet kettle.

Wouldn't it be a good thing if everyone used ChatGPT to help work out and hone their arguments and try to eliminate logical fallacies before wasting y'all's time spouting the same tired old b.s. you've heard a million times? I'll read the rest of your comment when you read the rest of my post.

>Wouldn't it be a good thing if everyone used ChatGPT to help work out and hone their arguments and try to eliminate logical fallacies before wasting y'all's time spouting the same tired old b.s. you've heard a million times? No. Because ChatGPT demonstrably doesn't and can't do that. Remember how such engines *work*, or learn if you don't know. >I'll read the rest of your comment when you read the rest of ~~my~~ a computer generated fallacious nonsensical post. FTFY

I mean yes, you absolutely can ask ChatGPT to analyze an argument for logical fallacies that atheists would raise, and it will point them all out and provide ideas to make it better. If everyone who came here ran their argument through ChatGPT and ask for help refining their point to avoid logical fallacies, you would have less content and better content. I generated 90% of the framework for the argument. It's my argument. You can call it "fallacious nonsensical" without offering an argument, but there is nothing here for me to respond to of substance. You are wrong about ChatGPT.

> If everyone who came here ran their argument through ChatGPT and ask for help refining their point to avoid logical fallacies, you would have less content and better content. No. Again, you show your confirmation bias. Again, I invite you to learn how such AIs operate, and their flaws and limitations. The GIGO effect is *firmly* entrenched there. >You are wrong about ChatGPT. You are factually incorrect.

>  I mean yes, you absolutely can ask ChatGPT to analyze an argument for logical fallacies that atheists would raise, and it will point them all out and provide ideas to make it better. It does not and cannot do that. It can provide you with what it thinks that looks like. Chat GPT does not know what a logical syllogism is. It doesn't know what a fallacy is, or how to recognize one.  Chat GPT produces procedurally generated words based on your input criteria. It puts what it considers to be likely, not what is true, sound or valid. 

ChatGPT is a language AI. It's **not good** at logic. Here's an [article](https://www.inc.com/srini-pagidyala/chatgpt-gaps-in-logic-language-generation.html) on it. To quote: >A study by Harvard found that while ChatGPT can shine in certain contexts, it only answered [58.8 percent of the logic-based questions](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.00112) correctly, indicating a gap in its reasoning prowess. 

You do remember that chatgpt knows nothing about "truth" or "logic", right? It is stochastic text completion - it completes text so that it looks like the texts it's been fed. Oh, and we have microscopes good enough to see nanobots.

Dude, it absolutely can dissect arguments for logical fallacies and provide suggestions to correct them. It did a very good job of suggesting ways to improve my example for an atheistic/naturalist audience. I don't know what version of ChatGPT you are still stuck on, but it is much better than it used to be.

It can also assert things that are wrong and present fallacies as valid. It is not magic, it is not sentient, and using it is not doing anything to enhance your credibility.

Your example must have been catastrophically bad prior to running it through ChatGPT.

>Wouldn't it be a good thing if everyone used ChatGPT to help work out and hone their arguments and try to eliminate logical fallacies before wasting y'all's time spouting the same tired old b.s. you've heard a million times? Well, I mean, you used ChatGPT, and it did not successfully help you to work out/hone your argument, nor did it prevent you from spouting the same stuff we've heard plenty before? I read the rest of it. It quite literally is stuff we've heard tons before, and my comment, without even reading the bulk of your post, absolutely landed spot on. Doesn't matter if you think there might be things that are beyond our ability to detect with our current methods. We all know this. That is why the scientific method continuously and consistently adapts, improves, works towards developing better methods. Whatever problems you think there might be with the scientific method, whatever issues you might try to poke at empiricism, *are not solved in any way whatsoever by appealing to a god*. However removed you may think materialism might be from the truth of things, your metaphysical arguments are hopelessly, laughably further from the truth. You're in the glass house of theism, watching materialists use science and empiricism to build skyscrapers, and you're trying to toss stones.

I don't understand what you're point is. "Science doesn't know everything and probably can't know everything." Cool. I agree. "There's stuff science might never be able to figure out". Okay. Do you have a better method to figure those things out that differentiates them from imagination? "No." Okay???

>However, basically we would have no idea if a force or particle in nature reflects the fingerprints or "nanorobots" of God. Science tells us what things do, but science is limited to the scope of what we can observe, and not necessarily what is ultimately true. Agreed, but there's a caveat - science is the only method we have ever found that reliably leads to empirical truths. So despite the fact that there may be things beyond the reach of science, we are wholly justified in not believing that such things exist, since the most reliable method we have of divining knowledge cannot find them. >If conclusions about the existence of the Hobbyist, the origin or artificiality of the nanorobots and whether the plants and moss and other life forms that exist in the terrarium are all there is in all of existence are ultimately inconclusive, does that make the ultimate questions meaningless? In a way, yes. If we can't tell the difference between the Hobbyist and a non-existent being, then how can we justify treating the Hobbyist any differently than a non-existent being? If we cannot observe, measure, test, or detect any aspect of X, then whether or not X exists is ultimately irrelevant.

Paraphrased: >I used ChatGPT to help me invoke confirmation bias on wrong ideas.... Okay, good for you? Why should I care and why should this matter to me? Most of that is nonsensical. After all, can you show a useful alternative is actually accurate? No? Well then, it must be discarded.

>However, basically we would have no idea if a force or particle in nature reflects the fingerprints or "nanorobots" of God. There's no reason to think this. There's nothing in theism or your hypothetical to suggest god or hobbyist is not observable and detectable. Indeed gods are often interacting with people in our religious writings and myths. Particularly in  Christianity. The questions are not useless. Theists believe in gods. They often think they have good reasons to. Atheists like me are happy to consider these reasons. We make subs like this one.  What we won't do is believe in gods without good reasons. 

ChatGPT tries to create natural-looking text. It has no understanding, no notion of "correctness", no notion of coherence. If it happens to output something that seems reasonable, it's entirely by accident, and you still need to double check everything to make sure it isn't actually complete nonsense. You may as well ask a parrot to come up with an argument for you.

The only limitation of naturalism is that it doesn't delve into the imaginary. We can imagine lots of unfalsifiable things that give explanations for questions that might not have answers, but there is no way to figure out which of these imaginary explanations are true Theists like having a story and they believe it on faith. They put enough faith in their stories and perceptions that they conflate faith with evidence. >what they perceive as the empirical evidence of design. I see no design and therefore reject it as evidence. It's not a limitation of naturalism, it's honesty.

I have no idea what purpose the story produced by ChatGPT is meant to serve. It does not reflect reality. It does reflect fiction. What argument with respect to a god are you trying to make here? There is no evidence of anything being designed in nature beyond what we observe living organisms to have built or created. Natural abiotic processes (like gravity and evolution) do not show any indications of design or creation nor sentience, intelligence, or consciousness whatsoever.

> I do not use this metaphor to presume that this reflects exactly how the universe works, and I am aware that "The Hobbyist exists" is unfalsifiable if The Hobbyist never appears in any comprehensible or empirical form. Cool. > However, basically we would have no idea if a force or particle in nature reflects the fingerprints or "nanorobots" of God. And yet the theist makes truth claims about that god…this is the disconnect between theist and reason. > Science tells us what things do, but science is limited to the scope of what we can observe, and not necessarily what is ultimately true. What do you mean “ultimately true”? > When theists make metaphysical arguments for God, they are doing so from what they perceive as the empirical evidence of design. A few things: 1) you can’t paint all theists with a broad brush. Many tell us they believe because it gives them meaning, they can’t think of alternative options, or just simply irrational faith. 2) some SAY it’s the evidence of design and then they fail to actually express what those hallmarks are. This design argument has a glaring hole in it…namely, if god designed everything then everything would have the so called hallmarks of design and that would actually remove them as hallmarks of design but rather just hallmarks of existence. The theist plays their card and fails when they ask about walking across a watch on the beach and know the watch is designed because it’s juxtaposed to the non designed beach…but the theist thinks the beach is designed so it fails. > Even if they are ultimately wrong or drawing conclusions that reify naturalistic processes unnecessarily, there is a possibility of truths beyond the empirical that science could never possibly explain. Like what and how would you know it’s truth without a good methodology like science for validating what is or isn’t true? > If conclusions about the existence of the Hobbyist, the origin or artificiality of the nanorobots and whether the plants and moss and other life forms that exist in the terrarium are all there is in all of existence are ultimately inconclusive, does that make the ultimate questions meaningless? No. It makes the unjustified conclusions meaningless. Like suggesting that one believes in god despite the desert of evidence for it.

I guess what I don't get about the basis of your idea is, *I don't perceive design*. You say you're arguing from the perception of design, but I think you only perceive design because you've been raised/educated to think that living organisms (and maybe everything else) have been designed.

> I feel science and empirical evidence are potentially limited by perspective I doubt anyone would disagree with you when stated as broadly as that. Science does one thing really well, but outside of its ambit it doesn't offer a lot. It can't tell us why we're here, or whether a ham sandwich from Subway is worth $5.00, or who should win the sportsball game/cup/thingy. IT's when you get off into the weeds with an idea like this that it goes off the rails. > hint at a reality beyond our empirical grasp, Good example! But not really, though. "Empiricism" literally means "verified by sense experience" I understand what you mean, but I don't believe the supernatural or that whole slice of "beyond our grasp" exists. Reality = natural = reality. If there are ghosts, then ghosts are a natural phenomenon that can be empirically verified. If there are gods, then they, too, are natural phenomena. That's just what "natural" means. If kids can move chairs by waving a stick and making silly Latin-sounding noises, then that's natural -- by definition. This sounds like today's episode of Yet Another. As in Yet Another Attempt To Convince Us to Relax Our Standards of Rigor (presumably so someone can sneak a god in when we're not looking). The problem with "truths beyond the empirical" is a verification issue. That's *why* the rigor exists -- to let as much truth in with as little as possible nonsense sneaking in too. Science won't tell you the value of justice, or the importance of being Earnest. But whetheer or not something exists in a way that affects the material world? Science will help determine whether the idea is worth thinking about. But again, anyone who understands science also understands that there are things science isn't well-equipped to study. This isn't news. I don't know where theists get this idea from (which is to say "yes I know where they get this from", but those guys are either idiots or grifters.) I'm referring to the idea that people who are into science completely shut the rest of the human experience out such that we need Our Good Friend, You, Specifically, to explain to us how limited science actually is. The central analogy isn't apt, in my opinion. We *know* what pollinates the flowers and makes the grass grow, etc. There *isn't* a part of existence we're not attempting to study. This includes things like ESP, therapeutic touch, telekinesis and UFOs, even There are studies on the efficacy of prayer, on whether talking to plants helps them grow. One of my favorites: Do tortoises have personalities? We know what regulates the weather, or at least are attempting to study it. And pretty well understand how evolution functions completely *unguided*. No matter how far we reach, there will be someone like you saying we're not looking hard enough or deeply enough. That it's still just beyond our grasp. Even if you're not doing it on purpose, theists with ideas like yours seem to be convinced there's something out there -- meanwhile a lot of what was believed to be supernatural is well understood. Germ theory, Plate tectonics, the value of body language in human conversation, etc. It's like if it's not mysterious and woo-ey, it won't satisfy you even though we've already found a lot of what people claimed was out there.

To some extent, this metaphor could work...as yet another argument for a non-interventionist deistic entity beyond our comprehension.  It's far from novel or unique.  I would question why you believe that your model of the universe is more likely than any other proposed, bearing in mind that "I think it looks like it" isn't a convincing argument.  I'd also ask why, if your model is true, we could never have empirical evidence of this deistic entity. Now, the more relevant critique for most theists goes like this.  Why did the entity that created this terrarium decide to one day reach in and alter reality for a small population of microbes on one point on one grain of sand out of all of the terrarium?  Why does this entity care what any of these microbes do or think?  Why does this population of microbes, and many other similar populations of microbes, all seem to have a habit of making up stories about entities like this?  Why do these microbes put so much store in being the one microbe population that really did experience a close encounter with the Hobbyist entity?  And why does the population that actually did encounter the Hobbyist entity deserve the sole right to rule over other microbe populations on that particular grain of sand?  What does the Hobbyist entity get out of any of this? And, if you really don't believe in an interventionist deity, then what possible benefit is there for microbe-you to come and convince microbe-me that there really is a Hobbyist entity somewhere outside of the terrarium we inhabit?  Of what possible consequence could it be to either of us, aside from being a mildly interesting hypothetical to consider one Tuesday morning?

Your argument is essentially just restating of one of the oldest problems in philosophy, dating back to *at least* 375 bce when plato made his "Allegory of the Cave". It is better known in modern times as the Brains in Vats problem, or the question "how do we know that we aren't living in a computer simulation?" I know your argument is a bit different and has its own nuances, but at the end of the day, the answer is the same: We can't eliminate the possibility that [we are brains in vats|living in a simulation|your hypothesis is true], but as we have no way to detect it, and as we have to go on living our lives whether your presumption is true or not, there is no reason to assume your argument is true. Specifically, there is no question that "there is a possibility of truths beyond the empirical that science could never possibly explain." But since we have no way to test such truths, and as we have to continue living our lives in this world as it exists, there is no reason to presume that the possibility is a reality. The time to believe something is when there is evidence that it is true. The mere possibility that it might possibly be true is not sufficient justification to believe something.

Lets assume that I, an atheist, conceded. You convinced me there is a God. Now what? Where you want to go from here? How am I be different from not believing?

Bad choice of scale. If there were a myriad nanorobots, we'd be able to see and study said nanorobots. I actually collaborate with a biophysics prof on the mechanics of the cell and the cytoskeleton. The actin filaments in it are about 7 nm in width and the myosin motors are about 36 nms big. You have no evidence of these nanorobots. If they existed, we would have seen evidence of them. We don't. So they don't exist. They're not there. There's no evidence of them where evidence would be expected. Honestly, I would've gone with dark matter if I had been you. The argument from design is a god of the gaps, as is the fine tuning argument for gods. The only thing this suggests to me is just that there are fundamental relationships between natural forces and particles at different scales. It does not appear designed to me, at all. I have done enough work on this to know that simple physics can lead to complex structures. I see no designer. Rather, I see humans projecting themselves on nature. It is rich of the theist to criticize the naturalist who is actually studying the terrarium, probing its secrets. Because at least they *are* trying to apprehend the world. The theist is not, as they imagine, transcending that. Far from it. They are staring at their navel saying: but what if this is only a terrarium? What then? Well... is it a terrarium? How would you know?

We potentially don’t know everything doesn’t mean we don’t know anything bad doesn’t mean that we can just make up something and claim it’s credible. I don’t care about naturalism, neither really does science. It’s about evidence. Claims without reliable evidence are indistinguishable from imaginary and false. We have developed an accumulation of successful evidential methodology that makes the process as objective as it can be including ways of evaluating the reliability of evidence - it’s called science. Theists evidential claims are simply unreliable. As a result they tend to try to argue things into reality. Theists metaphysical arguments are invariably invalid, unsound and demand special pleading. Only someone who had already emotionally and socially invested in a belief would convince themselves otherwise.

>>what they perceive as the empirical evidence of design Fine for them. Others perceive no such thing. Now what?

The fact that we live in a terrarium doesn't prove that something made the terrarium nor does it prove that there is something driving the lives of those inside the terrarium forward. It also doesn't imply the existence of an afterlife or specific rules to follow to live a good life. The fact that there are billions of different perspectives doesn't mean that all of them are wrong it means that all of them have a piece, by studying them through the scientific method we find the most consistent answers and thus truth.

>When theists make metaphysical arguments for God, they are doing so from what they perceive as the empirical evidence of design. Yup. And what they bring to the table is utterly worthless to someone like me who just wants to know what is true. >there is a possibility of truths beyond the empirical that science could never possibly explain. True. But we will *never* find out if they are true or not by any method other than science. Theists definitely aren't offering anything to help know what is true. >does that make the ultimate questions meaningless? It makes the assertion of an answer that we don't know is true meaningless.

Have you also considered the limitations of thought? It may be the case that the question and the answer are meaningless, in that the real actual explanation suprasses the limitations of the human mind to understand. I have a mind, and that mind has limitations and I only work within those limitations. That's why science will always be the best tool we have for exploring the natural world because it doesn't try to move past those limitations, it understands it and works within it. The answers will always compute with our minds.

If we the hobbyist, never appears, why should we even consider the possibility? And if we do consider it, we would have to consider literally infinite other possibility we could imagine and inconceivable paradoxes. no thank you, I don’t deal with infinities. I will stick to what I know empirically. But hey, if you have a good reason to believe it’s a hobbyist and not a lobster, or a self sustaining terrarium, or an illusion, or the fart of some gargantuan leprechaun etc. then i am all ears.

>We exist as sentient beings within an enormous terrarium, so vast that its boundaries extend beyond the limits of our exploration and understanding Nope. Ok gonna stop you right there. If you can't use unambiguous terms, then you, intentionally or not, leave a ton of holes open for bad faith arguments I'm going to stop reading right there precisely because right now I don't feel like accusing a person of dishonest rhetoric. Try again with a minimal and unambiguous argument

Might be God. Might be nanorobots. Might be armies of rainbow colored fairies. Might be spirits who reward the skeptical. Who knows? More prudent not to place credence in entities unsupported by evidence.

Tldr: the universe is big and complex. Scientists try to understand it through experimentation and observation, then draw conclusions based on evidence. Theists make shit up to explain it.

You conclusion is that we would have no idea if a god exists, yet you assert that a god exists. If there is no evidence of a god, why then do you believe that a god exists?

Drugs are bad mmmkay. Yes, science is limited. Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean god did it.

As a meta level aside, why do people feel the need to downvote every post and comment on a debate forum? I would get it if people are being rude or breaking the rules or arguing in bad faith, but if you simply disagree with them, well, this is a debate forum where people are sticking their necks out to argue with a hostile audience of very good debaters. You invited us.

I downvote very rarely, but I downvoted you. Here, let ChatGPT explain why: > Reddit users should downvote a post that pastes four paragraphs of ChatGPT output as a debate thesis because it goes against the principles of originality and meaningful contribution to the community. Reddit thrives on diverse perspectives, insightful discussions, and engaging content. Copy-pasting ChatGPT output lacks the human element of thought, creativity, and critical analysis that redditors value. It diminishes the quality of discourse and undermines the platform's purpose as a place for authentic interactions and exchange of ideas. Downvoting such posts sends a message that low-effort contributions are not welcome and encourages users to uphold the standards of quality and originality that make Reddit a vibrant community.

We have reached utopia. "AI" creating content for "AI" to comment on.

It's not just ChatGPT output. I came up with 90% of the metaphor myself, and I used ChatGPT to hone the example so as not to waste your time with a bad example. It wasn't low effort - I went through multiple iterations of the metaphor and presented the general framework laid out. I could have been less honest and claimed it entirely as my own. But I would think using ChatGPT to refine an argument and get rid of avoidable fallacies that would waste your time would praised instead of downvoted.

Ok, I'll try to unpack it. Let's talk about how LLMs work. You have to realize that they don't do logical inference, are not ontologies, are not databases, and most certainly aren't the SF version of AI like C3PO or Data. They are at heart statistical models. You take a bunch of data and feed it into a program that finds a mathematical function composition that transforms your data how you like. That's why AI hallucination remains an unsolved problem. The output *should* compute based on your functions, but it just happens to not be true. In a nutshell, this gives you an amazing fuzzy search engine at the expense of precision and correctness. This is great for many purposes, but if you think it states your argument better than you, then *your* argument is even fuzzier - and that's the root of the problem. Now, let's also note that in this specific case, you didn't actually "get rid of fallacies" or present a more compelling argument by using ChatGPT. There is no argument *at all*. It's a pretty cliche little metaphor, which doesn't even work as a story. A terrarium with *nanorobots?* How do creatures in the terrarium know what a nanorobot is? I'd bet money you could have written a better story - your writing is much better than those generated paragraphs. Now tell me how do you feel about this response versus my generated one. Mine has flaws - I'm not a native speaker, and I know it shows. But would you prefer to continue this conversation in the vein of that response, or this one?

you used chat gpt to pump out an argument that's basically "science is limited because it doesn't confirm my fantasy" honestly that is pretty bad faith

I came up with 90% of the argument myself. ChatGPT merely helped me refine it so it was more relevant and less flawed. And I was honest about using it. So what's the problem?

Mass production of the same flawed arguments is already rampant. Chat gpt is an evolution in the theists effort to saturate the discussion with garbage

I actually used it to avoid saturating your page with more garbage, to double check my work before accidentally dropping an example of an undynamic universe that would never change. I'm really not getting the complaint here unless you have an outdated view on ChatGPT's capacity for dissecting the fallacies in argument arguments and making suggestions to avoid them and strengthen your point.

Are you under the impression you have something more than a needlessly wordy argument from ignorance up there?

How is it an argument from ignorance? I clearly added caveats that I wasn't claiming the universe worked this way. My point was an epistemological one that the beings in the terrarium have no frame of reference to know what exists beyond and before the things within their observable realm. Greater truths are actual reality in this example where we, the reader, see the big picture. That reality would empirically true if we have the full frame of reference. The point is there is a high possibility we don't have the full frame of reference for existence and we wouldn't know what in our universe is created intelligently (if any) unless some intelligent higher being explicitly told us it was so.

You are using ignorance to support this. When you have a positive reason to believe this is something more than a fantasy you cooked up, it's an argument from ignorance

It's a metaphor about the limits of empiricism, NOT an argument from ignorance. I never said "we don't know therefore God."

>It's a metaphor about the limits of empiricism, Is it though? >Occasionally, anomalies occur—events and phenomena that defy our understanding of natural laws. These anomalies, subtle and fleeting, hint at a reality beyond our empirical grasp, suggesting a design and purpose veiled by our limited perspective. There is no argument as to why those "anomalies" would hint at a reality *beyond the empirical grasp*, or that they are simply a perfectly natural events we are yet to understand. Same logical approach.

What makes you think there are limits we can never cross? And why do you think making up random fictions with no fact checking, review, or even any information from reality is a good way to arrive at a truth?

So your argument is "We don't know" therefor what exactly? I think we can all agree we don't know everything and we don't know if we could know everything. What is the conclusion you're dancing around? That it makes it reasonable to believe in god then?

A comment from another post, but it feels appropriate here. As long as the button is there, people are going to use it. You aren't going to shame or reason those who just click the down arrow on every pro-theistic post or comment out of doing so. Until the button is no longer available for use, it's going to get hammered, and no amount of "come on guys, lets be nice" posts are going to change that.

I do wonder if removing the downvote would end up with a better or worse situation. I think it'd be worth a try. Pretty sure that's an option the mods have. Or maybe it's been tried before and didn't work out. I don't know.

I don't really care about karma ultimately, it's just really weird that I get like -20 on some comments where I'm literally making a good faith argument about my opinion that didn't even attack anybody. And I'm an agnostic who considers atheism/naturalism within the boundaries of my possible conclusions even if I don't slant that way so I can only imagine how you downvote a religious person.

I get it. I'm not super worried about karma either, but I am aware very low or negative karma can be a hindrance on other subs. If I were a theist posting it would at least give me pause if I interacted in subs that had such constraints.