#arguments for the existence of god

[alevelrs]

The Ontological Argument

The ontological argument claims that God’s existence can be demonstrated simply through reasoning. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that explores the whole concept of existence. It is an a priori argument, in that it works from first principles, pure conceptual truth and definition in an attempt to demonstrate the existence of God. It is also deductive, using logic rather than empirical evidence.

According to the ontological argument, everything (with the exception of God) exists in a contingent way; it depends upon other factors. Human beings are contingent beings because they would not exist if their parents didn’t exist before them – absolutely everything else exists contingently too. However, God is not a ‘thing’; He has not come about because of anything; there was no time when God didn’t exist. Some, such as Paul Tillich, argue ‘exists’ isn’t the right word to use of God at all.

Anselm and the ontological argument

Anselm starts by defining God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be thought’. God is understood to be the highest sum of all perfections, where absolutely nothing could ever surpass God in any way. He argued that of we have an idea of a God who is perfect in every way, where nothing could possibly be greater, then this God must exist in reality. This is because a God who just exists in our heads – something we imagined to be great but doesn’t actually exist – would be inferior to a real God, and because God cannot be inferior to anything, He must exist.

Analogies can be used to understand this point: what would be greater: a huge heap of cash that exists in your imagination, or the same heap of cash in real life? In Anselm’s understanding of God, no one could seriously argue that a non-existent God would surpass an existent God in greatness.

So, his first form of the ontological argument follows this line of argument:

God is that than which nothing greater can be thought.

A real, existent being would be greater than an imaginary, illusionary being.

Therefore, the concept of God is surpassed by an actual, existent God.

In the second form of his argument, very similar to the first, he argued that it was impossible for God not to exist, because contingent beings are inferior to beings with a necessary existence:

God is that than which nothing greater can be thought.

Because God is unsurpassable in every way. God must have necessary existence.

Therefore God exists – necessarily.

God must exist because a necessary being cannot fail to exist. According to Anselm, necessary existence is part of the definition of God – you cannot talk about a God who does not exist, because He would not be God.

Analytic and synthetic propositions

The ontological argument can be understood by drawing a distinction between two kinds of propositions.

An analytic proposition is true by definition, e.g. ‘bachelors are unmarried men’. This proposition doesn’t need to be tested, because it can be arrived at by deduction – the concept of being a bachelor involves the concept of being unmarried, and a man. Anselm, in his ontological argument, claims that the statement ‘God exists’ is analytic – the concept of God involves the concept of existence, and without existence, the concept of God wouldn’t exist.

A synthetic proposition adds something to our understanding, beyond the definition – we need more than deduction to know if it is true or not: experience. ‘The corner shop sells newspapers’ is a synthetic proposition, because the concept of corner shops doesn’t include the concept of selling newspapers – you would have to go and check to know the truth of the proposition.

Anselm argued that ‘God exists’ is an analytic a priori statement, making reference to Psalm 53:1: “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God” They are corrupt and their ways are vile.” He found it difficult to understand how anyone could have the concept of God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be thought’ without also realising that God must exist.

Gaunilo’s Criticisms of Anselm

Gaunilo was a Christian, but he thought Anselm’s argument was not logical. He claimed that these logical flaws would be made obvious if we replaced the idea of God in his argument with an island. We could imagine the most excellent Lost Island, and then, using Anselm’s logic, go on to say that for such an island to exist in our minds means that this is inferior to the same island existing in reality. It is truly the most excellent, it cannot have the inferiority that comes from it being a concept only, it must exist in reality. But clearly, there is no such island in reality, we cannot bring something into reality just by defining it as a superlative.

Anselm replied to this argument by saying that although Gaunilo was right in the case of an island, the same objection did not work when the ontological argument was used of God, because an island has a contingent existence whereas God has a necessary existence. The argument only works with God because of the uniqueness of God and how He exists.

Aquinas’s criticisms of Anselm

Thomas Aquinas argued that the existence of God could be demonstrated through a posteriori arguments, but not through a priori reasoning alone. One of his points was that God’s existence cannot be self-evident. He said that if we take a statement such as ‘Truth does not exist’, it in nonsensical because no one can accept the truth of ‘truth does not exist’ unless truth actually does exist. It is impossible to have a mental concept of the non-existence of truth because it is a contradiction in terms. However, it is not impossible to have a mental concept of the non-existence of God, because people quite clearly imagine it. If we can imagine a state of godlessness, then it cannot be a contradiction in terms, despite Anselm’s claims.

Aquinas also acknowledged that God will always remain unknowable to the finite human mind, questioning whether everyone would accept Anselm’s definition of God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be thought’. Aquinas argued that we do not all share an understanding of what God is, and rejects the premise of Anselm’s argument. He was aware of the limitations of the human mind to comprehend the nature of God and emphasised that, at least until after death, we have to accept that God is mysterious and beyond human comprehension.

Descartes’s view of the ontological argument

Descartes believed that there are some concepts that are innate and universally shared by all of humanity, such as equality, cause, shape and number, as well as an understanding of what God is. We understand God to be the supremely perfect being, with every perfection as his attributes, ‘perfection’ meaning the traditional attributes of God such as omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

He used the analogies of a mountain and of a triangle to explain. He claimed that existence is part of the essence of God, just as three angles adding up to 180 degrees are part of the essence of a triangle, and a valley is part of the essence of a mountain. He recognised that these analogies have their limitations, as although we may not be able to think of a mountain without a valley, the mountain-and-valley combination in our imaginations doesn’t necessarily exist in real life. However, for God it is different because his nature involves perfections rather than angles or valleys,  and for Descartes, existence is a perfection.

Because God has all the perfections, and existence is a perfection, God therefore exists. And because God is perfect, he must be unchanging, so he must always have existed and will always continue to exist for eternity.

Kant’s critique of ontological arguments

Kant’s major criticism of Descartes’s argument was ‘existence is not a predicate’ – in other words, existence is not a characteristic or attribute of something. Predicates describe what that thing is like – tall, green, round etc, but ‘existence’, Kant argued, is not the same as a predicate as it doesn’t tell us anything about the object that would help us to identify it in any way. When we say something ‘exists’, we are not saying that it has a certain characteristic, but rather that this concept, with all its characteristics has been ‘actualised’ or ‘exemplified’. His point is that when we are thinking of God, whether through Descartes or Anselm’s arguments, we are thinking of a concept, and whether that concept is actualised in the real world is an issue that cannot be resolved by simply adding ‘existence’ to the different predicates. We can predicate of a triangle that it has three sides, and that its angles add up to 180 degrees, but we would have to investigate further to find out whether the triangle we are picturing in our minds has been actualised.

He used the example of a hundred Prussian dollars to illustrate how existence is not a predicate. Adding ‘exists’ to the idea of God, as a predicate, doesn’t add anything new to what we understand by God, but is just a comment on whether he exists. In the same way, an imaginary $100 is not ‘added to’ if we substitute it for a real $100 – we are talking about the same amount of money either way.

Some, such as Norman Malcolm may argue against this by saying that existence is usually not a characteristic that helps us distinguish between one thing and another and so usually is not a predicate, but necessary existence is a characteristic that does draw a distinction between God and everything else, just like God’s other characteristics of omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omniscience. However, this makes the argument circular: we have to accept that God exists necessarily to come to the conclusion that God exists necessarily.

Bertrand Russell on the ontological argument

He criticised it by asking us to consider the statement ‘the present King of France is bald’. This statement is not true, but that doesn’t mean that therefore the statement ‘the present King of France is not bald’ is true, because there is no present King of France. Our use of words and the way we apply predicates, such as bald and not bald, is not enough to demonstrate that something exists, and when we apply predicates to something whose existence is a matter of uncertainty, we cannot expect the normal rules of linguistic logic to apply.

Discussion points

A priori arguments can be persuasive as they lead us to a certain truth, whilst a posteriori arguments can only lead to probabilities.

He ontological argument can seem like an intellectual puzzle made for elite, educated people meaning it is quite inaccessible. People often want to see evidence for themselves using their own senses, rather than rely on the conceptual reasoning of philosophers.

The ontological argument is not convincing enough to make someone who doesn’t believe in God change their mind, BUT Anselm did not set out to convert non-believers, he was simply helping those who already held a belief to gain a deeper understanding of His uniqueness and greatness. Religious belief is much more than just an intellectual acceptance of certain assertions, but involves, emotions, intuitions and commitment. It does not fall simply on the strength of a logical argument.

Faith in God seems to demand an element of uncertainty, and a willingness to take risks. God may need to remain partially hidden from the world to maintain epistemic distance, meaning the world should remain ‘religiously ambiguous’ so people have a choice. Only with this epistemic distance is it possible for humans to have a genuinely free will to exercise faith – if God’s existence were undeniable, faith would mean nothing.

[serpentface]

This was going to be a panel of a little comic but I got too invested in drawing minute background details so, here.

[necrotic-nephilim]

what's fun about shipping Tim with Dick, Jason, or Damian is he has, at some point, hallucinated all of them to comfort himself. even when he doesn't like them or particularly get along with them, he has to imagine/hallucinate them just so he has the power to go on. Tim's concepts of the Robin mantle and what it should be is so fun, because he respects the others through the Robin mantle. Tim worships Dick because he was the first Robin. he wouldn't be Robin if Jason hadn't died in the mantle. and a lot of his frustration with Damian is he feels Damian isn't honoring the mantle correctly. when you ship Tim with the other Robins you can't divorce their identities as Robin from it because Tim will always see them as a Robin first and that's so fun and fucked up. like.

batman (1940) #456

Tim perceiving Dick as *Robin* cheering him on, not Nightwing, which is the version of Dick that Tim actually knows? that's just. wild of him. he will always view Dick as Robin first, his personal hero but also the original of the legacy. his love for Dick is shaped by that.

and then of course, even when he's hallucinating/imagining Jason cheering him on, it's *still* through the lense of being reminded how Jason failed? subconsciously believing that Jason got himself killed because of his actions, and that being a lesson for Tim to learn from? Jason isn't a person to Tim, he's a moral lesson about how to be Robin. any potential idolization he could have of Jason isn't because he loves Jason, it's because of the lessons Jason's death taught him.

and then, even though him hallucinating TIm is from the New-52, which makes characterization all kinds of questionable, i do think it makes sense for TIm to hallucinate/imagine Damian after Damian's death in an attempt to cope with it.

teen titans (2011) #18

to an extend, he sees Damian's death as in part his own fault. and even hating Damian, Tim needs the comfort from this to cope with Damian being gone. he's angry that Damian even was Robin, and has to learn something from Damian's death and how it impacts the Robin mantle, and teenage heroes as a whole. like, Tim can pretend he hates Damian all he wants, even getting taunted by the image of Damian, but there's still an underlying love to their relationship.

i think that's just the fun of shipping Tim with any of them. you will never divorce Tim's views of them from the Robin mantle and how fucking Unwell he is about anyone else who's been Robin before or after him, to the point he has to hallucinate them comforting him when he's at his lowest. it's always going to be a little unhealthy, a little toxic, and driven by Tim's relationship with being Robin as well. i need more Tim being weird about Robin in these ships.

[ladybugssssssss]

The reality of how sad this is hit me like a truck

[codenamesazanka]

Your rabid Izuku hate has smoothed out your brain but actually the League was toxic for Tenko. Izuku is the only person who saw who Tenko really is and healed him.

oh fuck my bad. You're right. Deku healed him, which is why Shigaraki/Tenko is alive in a hospital bed right now doing sudoku and a therapy coloring book. I can't believe I fucking miss that.

[widowshill]

— And do you or do you not have difficulty remembering such simple instructions? — Only during thunderstorms, sir.

THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965) / DARK SHADOWS (1966)

[somewhatsentientspellbook]

I don't remember if this was an actual argument at one point (I genuinely could have just imagined it), but I think it's worth addressing anyway because there are probably people out there who do believe similar ideas.

And that is: a viewpoint where the gods striking down Aeor for building the Factorum Malleus was akin to killing someone for having a gun in their house.

Because, like, no.

Aeor wasn't a protective parent keeping a gun (capable of killing anyone when fired) safely locked up in the home office in the event that someone breaks in. Aeor was a rogue city run by a militaristic, totalitarian government that had spent time, money, and resources to develop a nuclear-level weapon; one that's designed to exclusively target a group of people they want eradicated.

That weapon was never going to remain a precaution. That weapon was going to be put into use immediately.

The Downfall gods weren't criminals breaking into a house because they were paranoid their neighbours were going to kill them. They were a covert ops team sent to destroy something that was being built specifically to harm them and their family.

It just so happened that events unfolded the way they did in the tragic way that prequel stories do, where no matter what the characters try to do, fate decided that Aeor would fall.

[imjustaf444keriguess]

like there has got to be at least one doctor out there that says endogenics are fake right??

there's ones that argue DID isn't even a real thing there's some out there that argue against endogenics openly and actively?? right??

[rist-ix]

https://www.tumblr.com/rist-ix/749015401700229120 not you reblogging this when you ship bloom with the man who murdered her family 😭

Bloom's into ppl who slay! Hope this helps :3

[tojisun]

remembering our final lecture and how my philosophy prof tried so hard to maintain composure when talking about freud's theory about the origin of theism until he (prof) finally got to the part where freud mentions how a child sees his father as a threat, and poor dude just had to take a break, drag in a deep breath, and then go back to discussing about freud's paper.

he then looked at us after finishing the text, and weakly went, "so? what'd you think?"

and there was a genuine moment of silence before someone finally broke down laughing

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Armin Navabi

Published: Jan 11, 2014

1. "Science can't explain the complexity and order of life; God must have designed it to be this way."

First, when considering this position, it's important to recognize the difference between complexity and design. Complexity itself does not require an intelligent creator. It's easy to impose a design upon things that exist by chance or developed through a natural process like evolution.

To an extent, this argument gains traction because of wide misunderstanding of science and especially evolution. Everything in the universe conforms to certain simple scientific rules that have been repeated over billions of years. While this can be awe-inspiring, it by no means suggests a creator.

Failure to understand the scientific principles guiding the creation and development of the universe does not mean that a deity must exist to explain the natural world.

-

2. "God's existence is proven by scripture."

This argument presupposes its premise. People believe in scripture and place value in the words because they already believe in the religious principles the text describes. There is no inherent value to the Bible, Quran or any other religious text; these documents are not self-authenticating in any way.

In fact, many factual inaccuracies and inconsistencies can be found within religious texts themselves. For example, the Bible contains two separate creation stories, each of which provides a very different explanation. Similarly, there is no historical, archaeological or scientific evidence to support many of the stories in the Bible and the Quran.

Ultimately, religious texts are infinitely fallible because they are man-made products of whimsy, poetry, mythology and some history woven together into a new whole. The texts in the Bible have been gathered from many oral sources over thousands of years and compiled arbitrarily into a single document; it's hardly surprising that the narrative would be so inconsistent. Other religious texts have similarly convoluted histories.

Aside from the problems with individual texts, there's also the obvious issue that the very presence of multiple scriptures negates the authenticity of any single religious document. It's impossible for every religious book to be true; it's highly presumptuous to assume that one's own preferred scripture is the single "true" scripture while all the others are false accounts. It's far more likely that every religious book is equally fictitious and unreliable.

-

3. "Some unexplained events are miraculous, and these miracles prove the existence of God."

A miracle is typically understood as an extraordinary event or happening that is explained as being the work of a divine agency and having a supernatural origin. However, before miracles can be used as irrefutable proof of God's existence, the cause or origin of so-called miracles must be proven. There is currently no evidence to suggest that miracles truly exist. In reality, there are several underlying explanations behind most miracles, for example:

-- The event is statistically unlikely, and its unlikeliness has caused some people to attribute significance to it. For example, some cultures believe that all-white animals are miraculous or somehow magical. However, science has proven that albinism is a perfectly normal genetic condition that happens to be rarer than other forms of pigmentation. Similarly, a single person surviving a natural disaster is no more miraculous than a single person winning the lottery; it's simply an unlikely random occurrence. -- The event has a scientific cause that is not immediately apparent or understood but is later identified. Many natural phenomena were once viewed as miraculous. After science demonstrated the reason behind previously incomprehensible things, like aurora borealis, earthquakes and hot springs, they stopped seeming like the actions of a mysterious deity. -- The event was inherently meaningless, but meaning and significance was attributed after the fact. In science, hearsay and anecdotal evidence are not sufficient to prove something. Each time a "miracle" occurs, it's easy to see magical thinking, misattribution and other human errors at work. For example, if a child is ill in the hospital, a family member might pray for his recovery. If that child does recover, the praying relative will attribute this to the power of prayer, not to any medical innovations, immunological responses or sheer power of chance.

It's curious to note that the miracles performed by an "all-loving" and benevolent God so often involve sparing a handful of people from a tragic accident, devastating disaster or deadly disease. God is rarely held accountable by believers for all of the deaths that occur when people are not saved by a "miracle." On the whole, the tiny percentage of "miraculous" recoveries would be greater evidence of a deity's arbitrary cruelty than his benevolence, but this is never something believers seem comfortable discussing.

-

4. "Morality stems from God, and without God, we could not be good people."

So-called "moral" behaviors, such as altruism and reciprocity, are not inherently human. In the natural world, they can be observed in a variety of animal species, especially social animals. Science shows that such behavior has an evolutionary benefit: creatures who learn to interact well with their kin will have a stronger likelihood of survival and passing on their genes.

All of this means that, from a scientific viewpoint, morality does not stem from God. Instead, it has its roots in brain chemicals and is supported by strong cultural conditioning. Parents pass their morals along to their children, and individuals take social cues regarding "right" and "wrong" behaviors from friends, family, media influence and more. Religious texts are just an attempt to codify acceptable behaviors into a set of laws. Unfortunately, these rules can quickly become outdated, irrelevant and even painfully arbitrary.

It's fashionable for religious people to claim that atheists are immoral hedonists, but a quick survey of real people shows that to be false. By and large, atheists are no less moral than any other group of people.

-

5. "Belief in God would not be so widespread if God didn’t exist."

This type of claim is called an "argumentum ad populum" or “appeal to the majority,” and it's simply not true. Many beliefs are popular or widely held without being true, and things that are true exist whether anyone believes in them or not.

Alchemy, at one time, was extremely popular and widespread, but few people today would seriously claim that lead could be transmuted into gold. There are similarly few people who still believe that the earth is flat or the center of the universe despite those also being very popular beliefs at one time.

Furthermore, the widespread nature of religion says little about the veracity of any given religious belief. While it's true that many cultures around the world all hold religious beliefs, those beliefs themselves are widely variable and often at odds with each other. When every religion states that it is the one true path to salvation, it by necessity claims that all others are false. If religion were true by virtue of widespread belief, it would certainly make more sense for all people to at least believe the same thing.

-

6. "God answers prayers; therefore, he must be real."

Just as miracles are impossible to prove without resorting to unreliable anecdotes, the power of prayer is certainly not supported by science. Belief in prayer relies on confirmation bias. Essentially, people remember the times that prayer seemed to "work" but conveniently forget the many occasions that they prayed and saw no response or received the opposite result of what they'd wanted. These unwanted results are often ignored completely or rationalized away.

Prayer is a type of magical thinking. Its appeal is undeniable; it feels empowering and makes individuals feel as though they have a measure of control over the world around them. But there is simply no evidence that prayers are anything more than a placebo. And unlike many placebos, prayer can actually be harmful.

The "power of prayer" is one of the most insidious and even harmful beliefs proffered by religion. When faced with any sort of tragedy or misfortune, prayer is one of the least helpful responses imaginable. When tragedy strikes, prayer may make people feel better, but it doesn't actually help the victims.

Donating blood, giving money to the Red Cross or volunteering with a relief organization would all be far more beneficial than praying to the same hypothetical deity who ostensibly caused the disaster in the first place.

-

7. "I feel a personal relationship to God, so I know that he is real."

Such personal testimonies are difficult to refute because they are completely subjective. They're also impossible to prove for the same reason. When individuals report a private revelation or communication with God, it's never about factual information that could be confirmed or denied. These religious experiences are always personal and emotional, which makes them count as nothing more than anecdotal “evidence”.

The human brain has evolved to be particularly sensitive to patterns and causality. It's so effective at this, in fact, that people often see a pattern or purpose in things that are actually random. This is why it's easy to identify objects or faces in the clouds, for example, or why white noise can be interpreted to resemble human speech. This same sensitivity can make random or unrelated events seem like the presence of God, especially if the person experiencing them has a predisposition toward wanting those beliefs to be true.

In other cases, a religious experience can be triggered by any number of outside forces, including drug use or mental illness. Indeed, many people in multiple cultures have experienced similar symptoms but variously attributed them to a variety of different sources, both religious and secular.

-

8. "It's safer to believe in God than be wrong and go to Hell."

This concept, called Pascal's Wager, does not actually support religious beliefs. Instead, it acts as a way to coerce belief out of unwilling participants. The logic goes something like this: if I believe in God and am wrong, then nothing bad will happen. But if I renounce God and am wrong, I will be punished in Hell. There are several problems with this line of reasoning:

-- Religions are inconsistent. In order for Pascal's Wager to work, the believer would need some assurance that believing in God would, in fact, save him from punishment. When multiple religions exist with conflicting messages, however, this is impossible. What if you choose to believe in the wrong God and go to Hell anyway? -- A truly benevolent God would not punish his creations simply because they did not believe in him. God could just as easily reward his creations for being skeptical. Because there is no way to ascertain what a deity's motives might be, there's no way to know that Pascal's Wager would even work. -- If a person believes in God only out of fear of punishment, that belief would be thin and false. Surely an omniscient deity could see through that act and choose to reward only true believers.

-

9. "I have faith; I don't need facts. I just want to believe."

This argument would be perfectly valid if the believer was willing to concede that their God is a social construction or metaphorical concept. Most believers aren't comfortable with that, though, and faith simply does not stand up in the face of scientific scrutiny. Believing in something does not make it true.

Truth is not subjective or democratic. It does not need belief to make it work. Gravity, for example, works the same whether you have faith in it or not. You do not need to choose to believe in gravity because it's an immutable fact of the universe.

Faith is often lauded as a positive quality, but it is, in fact, very intellectually lazy. Faith precludes scientific thinking and the natural wonder of discovery; it stops people from searching for answers to questions about the real world. Faith is little more than the glorification of willful ignorance.

-

10. "There's no evidence that God doesn't exist."

This argument is often offered as a last line of defense in religious debates, and the person posing it might feel very clever coming up with it. However, the premise of the argument is both flawed and ridiculous. The failure to disprove something does not constitute proof of its existence.

The burden of proof is always on the person making a claim, especially in cases where the claims are unsupported or unfalsifiable. With no enduring evidence that a God exists, there is simply no reason to believe in a deity, even if it's not possible to irrefutably disprove his existence.

Many thought experiments have been created to show the absurdity of these claims, such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Carl Sagan's "The Dragon in My Garage," Russell's Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. All of which are absurd claims without evidence and yet impossible to disprove. Familiarizing yourself with these thought experiments can give you a clear picture of exactly why the burden of proof should always be on the person making a claim.

[vulpinesaint]

i need everybody ever to watch this video actually. the issue is not difficult but if you’re somehow still feeling uncertain in any way about hogwarts legacy watch the video. they say it well and they say it with confidence and i love them actually

[appolinyou]

Someone: ugh, Kuwei, you nasty neighbor's child! Oh, what a horror, how I hate you, because you were hitting on one of my favorite couples! Kaz:/ takes his stick in his hands and beats this: someone, "because Kuwei is his old agreement and part of the deal, And you need to protect your assets, including morally. (and he also reminds too much of a part of himself, the one that survived at all costs)

Baby, look at the tags

[dirtytransmasc]

Are yyou team green or black? And why?

team green, though I'm not in support of every green character (namely Otto though my opinion of him is complicated. I also have opinions on Aegon and his characterization that makes it even more complicated)

[I have only read bits and pieces of the book, so my opinion is based almost solely on the show. keep this in mind]

I'm team green for 3 big reasons. they're more complex, thought not perfect by any means, more morally "right", and are simply more my vibe when it comes to characters. now this is very simplified and not at all nuanced, so stick with me for a minute.

Firstly, they're more complex. the greens have very deep, detailed, and nuanced lives and stories that lead to them being very complex characters that can't be put into a box. Alicent was a child bride who had lost her mother young became a mother young and suffered at the hands of power and men all her life. her children were affected by this and the world they were forced to grow up in throughout their lives. even individually her kids are drastically different; aegon the child who was forced into a life he did not want and suffered due to his father neglect and mother pain. Helaena who was never understood and grew up treated like an oddity. Aemond who was never seen to his full potential, always ignored or looked over, angry throughout his life. each of them has strengths and weaknesses, flaws and benefits, they're imperfect but never completely horrid. they're also never simplified (not entirely, even when the plot and writers seek to simplify them) to the point that they put on a moral pedestal or made straight evil (i'd even argue that the attempts of the writer to oversimplify them as evil and in the wrong makes them 10x more fascinating). I find TB characters tended to miss the mark on that, always put in the moral light, not even allowed a moment to reflect on their actions, lives, or positions in any nuanced or meaningful way, so they always just feel dull. they're also out on a moral highground that they can never be budged from, which makes them harder to like and honestly, really boring. they get away with everything instead of being emotionally and morally nuanced.

secondly, they're more morally "right". I will never say that any of the greens are perfect, they are far from it (with the exception of Helaena and her kids, who have done literally nothing to anyone, but I digress). what I will say, 9/10 times there is some level of reasoning that has some level of reasoning. Alicent always tries to do whats best for everyone, all throughout the series she tried to do best by the court, the king, her children, the realm, and Rhaenyra. did she always succeed? no, but she always tried and her mistakes were almost always honest. I will say she held resentment towards Rhaenya, but honestly, I can't blame her. Rhaenyra's lies and behavior hurt Alicent over and over again so for her to be angry is expected.when it came to succession, Alicent backed Rhaenyra until it was made clear she and Daemon would be a threat to her children's lives and even than she held mercy for Rhaenyra. Aegon's drinking can be blamed on the abuse and neglect he suffered at Viserys, Otto, and Alicent's (though the abuse and neglect from his mother is insanely different and nuanced. she perpetuated her pain onto him because she couldn't heal herself. so I hesitate to call it abuse, cause its so much more complicated than that) hands. though nothing will justify his rape of Dyana, I personally think it was a bad add in on the writers part, and leave it at that. Aemonds rage after years of being ignored doesn't entirely justify what he did to luke, but he had reason for his cruelty after years of Luke (and jace tbh) being cruel just because they could. TB characters tend to do terrible things in response to either A. nothing B. their own terrible things. Daemon kills who he wants when he feels like it, even for stating facts. Rhaneyra will lie and hurt those around her to protect her bastard children. both of them conspire to protect themselves and allow themselves to be wed, really just cause. while there are times they have their reasons, its a lot less of the time, and typically the backing to their actions, is they were trying to unbury themselves from within their own graves. (to preface, I don't care about rhaenyra sleeping around, it doesn't bother me, but its the fact that she will hurt everyone around her to protect her lies, allowing a child to be maimed and people to be murdered)

thirdly, they're my vibe. I like morally complex character, who are, to be frank, pathetic. I like characters with complex trauma's and issues, who aren't perfect people but its not entirely their fault. I would much rather watch a whole show about alicent, a child bride who tries so hard to be a good wife, queen, and mother while not prepared for any such role. Aegon who is a boy with severe mommy and daddy issues, a drinking problem, a flawed past, and constantly wet eyes. Helaena an ignored girl who has suffered for no better reason then her family. and Aemond, a boy who was tormented, bullied, maimed, and made stronger by it at the cost of his compassion and emotional stability - over a nepo baby who was coddled by her father, her murderous husband with a knack for unneeded violence, and her similarly coddled children (the show boiled them down to this, in my opinion). one is simply more up my alley than the other. I want character that need to be dissected, who have suffered, who hurt me to look at.

also, team black created almost all of their own problems. seeing as the main source of contention had to do with Rhaenyra's kids being bastards, which was Rhaenyra's problem, which she caused, and kept digging and digging that grave (faking Laenors death just so she could marry daemon, turning the blame on aemond when luke maimed him furthering the divide amongst the house, trying to wed Helaena to Jace putting her in danger, trying to take the driftmark throne and killing Vaemond for a claim her sons did not have, etc,) till viserys's death, earns her a lot less pity from me. at the end of the day, her being a woman was only a needle in a haystack worth of problems she caused herself that hurt her claim. if she had just strived to create to connection with ancient and her kids, and didn't make herself look like a threat to everyone who lessened her claim (which alicents kids would be the first people to be taken out) alicent would have backed like she had all season and there would have been no war, maybe conflict, but no war.

theres also the effect of the fans on my opinion. I have faced more cruelty, terrible media analysis, and outright ableism/misogny/(blood and sexual based) purist ideology/etc. from the TB fans then I have ever witness by TG fans. TB fans have ruined almost all of the TB characters for me in more ways than I can count, so I will say I am very biased.

thats why I'm team green. as a whole they are simply more appealing, their stories are more interesting, demand more attention to detail and emotional understanding, and from my point of view were the "right" side to be on in the war (the war was wrong on both sides, but my chips lie in the favour of the greens).

[steelthroat]

I was thinking about the fact that it's very funny that my parents had more problems with me being atheist than with me being queer.

Like:

"Sure hon, you have a weird perception of your gender and you could possibly bring home women, men or everything in-between... fine, love is love we will take you to the pride and stuff ^w^. BUT WHAT ABOUT JESUS CHRIST HUH?????"

And when I say they had 'more problems' I mean they were like "ow... so you won't come to church on Sundays with us anymore? At least the holidays?🥺"

like idk it's so funny to me

[iknaenmal]

drop your address i just want to talk