I did in my earlier posts. I am not there much because I have my own thread although I found it amuzing when you were making weird sexual connections to muslims praying. So worry not my little gay Tistuff I already stated that all religions (Islam included) are fake.

Oh I take TiStuff seriously. It's you that nobody takes seriously. You haven't come up with anything even remotely persuasive. When doing further digging all you ever done is copy and paste stuff that you Googled or posted your Facebook memes. Either way, nothing you have produced is your own work or thoughts.

If you ever try to come up with your own thoughts or ideas then you get shutdown very quickly. In the end you simply stop responding. You said it yourself that you don't even believe that sin is a thing. From there we can plainly see the outcome of that.

This didn't address the point I was making at all. You simply restated that Christians in the past squashed it without demonstrating how. This is an ongoing pattern for theists. Authority makes a claim then you just blindly accept it. Bible says its true then it must be true.. (insert windows shutdown sound effect*)

They apply to your argument of grounding in god , I thought you were posing as a philosophy buff would know what they were apparently it needs to be spelled out.


The Epistemic Access Problem ‐ If knowledge is entirely dependent on God’s mind, humans cannot have independent access to truth. This leads to solipsism or idealism, where we cannot distinguish between true knowledge and mere divine illusion, thereby undermining the very concept of "knowing" anything reliably.

The Euthyphro Dilemma for Truth: Question whether God knows something because it is true, or if it is true because God knows it. If the latter, truth becomes arbitrary and contingent on God’s will, meaning logical contradictions (like 2+2=5) could be true if God willed them, which destroys the foundation of rational discourse.

Argument from Ignorance (God of the Gaps): As noted in apologetic refutations, relying on God to explain the origin of knowledge is a logical fallacy if it merely pushes the explanatory burden back without providing a mechanism. It assumes a gap in naturalistic explanations that may not exist, similar to historical "God of the gaps" errors regarding thunder or disease.

Burden of Proof and Russell’s Teapot: The claim that God grounds knowledge is an unfalsifiable assertion. Following Hitchens’ Razor, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The proponent must provide verifiable evidence for this specific metaphysical mechanism, not just an unsupported assumption.

Naturalistic Alternatives: Propose that knowledge is grounded in evolutionary reliability or logical realism. If human cognitive faculties are reliable for survival and consistent with observable reality, they can ground knowledge without invoking a deity. Invoking God adds unnecessary complexity without solving the problem of how finite minds access infinite truth.

you didn't make a point, you gave some personal interpretation of the bible that is irrelevant and is not Christianity. The bible didn't fall to the earth, Christianity is not the bible, the bible is the holy written tradition of the Church which is the body of Christ. The only people with authority to make theological statements about His Church are bishops especially within ecumenical councils and synods, some random dude reading it his own way is irrelevant. making some argument that Christ is just a man or whatever junk you said based on your personal feelings has been completely destroyed as I said 1600+ years ago and you bringing it up thinking you understand anything about Christianity shows your complete ignorance of Church history.

I said to make an argument using them, I know them all.

the epistemic problem is actually solved by Christianity. The possibility of knowledge is grounded in God, as He is the basis of all reality and truth itself. How does it follow that we cannot have access to truth if all truth is grounded in Him? This is a non sequitur. He is a relational God who in perfect perichoresis sustains and indwells the universe, stringing the pearls together to make knowledge itself possible for us. You added "independent truth" even though that has nothing to do with the dilemma. we are not independent we are contingent creatures made in the image of God. Your worldview actually suffers from the epistemic access problem as it questions how in a purely materialistic worldview finite beings can have knowledge about abstract non material things. the funny thing is this is essentially the problem of the one and the many which materialistic worldviews cannot answer for

for the Euthyphro Dilemma truth is neither an arbitrary decree outside of God nor an independent standard above Him. truth itself is a reflection of God's ontology, things aren't true because he says so nor is truth separate from Him. this critique doesn't apply to the Christian God

for the God of the gaps this is a category error, my argument is not an inductive argument about a missing mechanism that i fill the gap in with God. My argument is a deductive transcendental proof based on the impossibility of the contrary. the very preconditions of any argument, knowledge, or scientific inquiry require universal, invariant laws and the only possible grounding for that is the Triune God, it is an impossibility of the contrary argument. It's not that we just are waiting for new data or evidence to explain the lightning bolt, a materialistic worldview fundamentally cannot account for these categories.

russell's teapot is another category error, similar to the above one, the teapot hypothetical is about a physical, material object we simply lack empirical verification for my argument is a metalogical argument questioning the possibility of knowledge at all. this argument is simply low tier and irrelevant, your weird copy + paste giving hitchens' razor and talking about evidence presupposes empiricism itself which you haven't justified in your own worldview, this one fails in like every category and its obvious you put no thinking into this

the naturalistic alternative things is not even close to a critique to my argument, you cannot ground universal, immaterial and invariant in finite minds. basic philosophy 101. "if human cognitive faculties are reliable for survival... somehow they ground universal, immaterial and invariant logic" do you realize how this makes 0 sense? your copy paste at the end actually works against you " Invoking God adds unnecessary complexity without solving the problem of how finite minds access infinite truth." within your own naturalistic scenario we cannot possibly ground infinite truth within finite minds.

0/5 on this critique get better copy+pasta next time or find an ai that can think for you or something

This post was edited by majorblood on Jun 6 2026 04:46am

wonder why you running interference for muslims blocking public spaces while sticking out their azzezz in your faces?

(made a rhyme



(this is to much fun
tistuffs- hitchens dull razor
no evidence hitchens was ever even remotely reasonable therefor he wouldnt recognize evidence

'atheism is probably the only religion thats gets a beatdown by a blade of grass

The portion of the electromagnetic spectrum humans can perceive is the visible light spectrum. This segment accounts for approximately 0.0035 percent of the entire EM spectrum.
and knowing we barely see anything at all doesnt stop a 'atheist from figuring out everything......... you think im joking when i refer to them being in their own godhood?

This post was edited by TiStuff on Jun 6 2026 05:09am

So an anti-vaxxer is talking science now?!?

My comment had nothing to do with muslims blocking or supporting their actions in any way i was just noting your bizzare and out of place remarks thats all. You need to keep those weird sexual fantasies to yourself they have nothing to do with the topic. I outed you and then you got mad.

Atheism is not a religion stop babbling nonsense.



My original point was Thanos/other gods holds just as much of claim as jesus given your criteria for grounding logic. You did not prove Jesus to be a god you just asserted that he is a god. It is relevant because I can assert any faith based god that meets same criteria and you would have no way of challenging it other than your feelings. Now you are just making arguments from authority.

"The possibility of knowledge is grounded in God, as He is the basis of all reality and truth itself" this statement is a presumptive assertion you cannot use it as a basis for anything its simply an idea you think is true.
I'll be applying hitchen's razor from now on for every claim such as this with "no its not"
How do you know god strings all pearls for us and makes it knowledge possible? Another presumptive assertion

MORE Assumptive assertion on truth itself is a reflection of God's ontology.

knowledge, scientific inquiry require universal, invariant laws - no they don't probalistic models, theories and context specific frameworks are sufficient

The rest is just more "no its not"

I suggest before you make your claim you need to prove how it is "nesessary" without just stating that it is. Otherwise its pure philosophical theorycrafting not reflection on reality

you ran up on me in the thread and started running interference ........ its weird what they do and your gay innuendo psyops game is also weird

'atheism is absolutely crazy faith based religious. do you go to 'atheist church?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/secular-churches-atheist-congregations-sunday-assembly-worship-oasis/

you are now unironically claiming science and probabilistic models don't require invariant laws. do you even realize how embarrassing that statement is? probability itself relies entirely on the invariant laws of mathematics and logic. if those laws aren't invariant, your models collapse into unintelligible gibberish. you literally destroyed the foundation of science just to avoid admitting you lost a debate on the internet.

you still don't understand the difference between a contingent entity inside a universe like thanos and the absolute ontological ground of reality itself and how that is necessary for universal, immaterial, and invariant laws of logic. if you don't even grasp why these things must be invariant for us to have knowledge how can you possibly grasp a transcendental deduction. this is honestly coming down to an iq gap. every couple replies I have to explain why the possibility of intelligibility requires logic to be universal and unchanging and you simply cannot grasp it.

you fumbled church history, you fumbled the theology, you got caught copy-pasting things you didn't understand, and now you’ve fumbled basic high school science.