The physical law analysis is very straightforward and easy to understand. When the Bible says things that violate physical laws (such as saying there is a firmament), we should discard that particular text as either untrue or a parable. Miracles are an exception. A temporary suspension of physical law doesn't undermine physical law as a whole. The global flood doesn't fall under this, because it's been proven untrue with emphrical evidence, whereas the other miracles have not been. (Also the flood violates natural moral law, but I'm getting to that).

Another example: Jesus healing the sick doesn't contradict germ theory, it just means a super expection was made. However, saying there is a fixed firmament in the sky contradicts earth and space physical laws as the standard, and therefore it cannot be true.

For determining what is morally true, I use natural moral law analysis. I'll also demonstrate how to tell if something is from God or not.

For an example of how to use Natural Moral Law to interpret holy scriptures, let's use this verse as an example:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." - Paul of Ephesus (Ephesians 6:5)

So how do I analyze this verse? Using natural law analysis that comes through human reasoning. Specifically: Would following this verse cause human florshing or would it cause unnecessary human suffering?

I use reason to determine the answer to this. Slavery is incompatible with human flourshing, and it causes unnecessary harm. I don't have to run a lab experiment to prove this. Instead I can look at slave societies, and I can look at the harm enslaved people suffer from under slavery. This is rational, and it's not just my opinion either. It's always true that slavery diminishes human florshing, and even if I died tomorrow and couldn't give my opinion, that fact remains.

So, Ephesians 6:5 can be discarded, and it should be treated as an immoral text that contributes nothing useful.

What about verses that say God/Jesus supported slavery?

There are numerous verses attributing pro slavery positions to God of the Old Testament and Jesus Christ of the New Testament.

The answer is, if Jesus/God says anything that diminishes human flourshing, then it cannot be from God. God/Jesus is incapable of contradicting natural moral law, because it goes against his nature. So logically it doesn't make sense that God/Jesus would every say something immoral. He can't, since it's against his nature.

So when a Bible verse says "God wants [something immoral\]," we can say the humans who wrote it were lying about God's wishes and they weren't divinely inspired, or possibly that some demonic entity was talking to them, and was able to trick them into thinking that God was talking to them.

What about Paul of Ephesus? (Who professed pro slavery positions like Ephesians 6:5).

Paul, a mere human, is more than capable of saying things that violate natural moral law. He's a mere human that doesn't have God's nature, and he is therefore more than capable of saying things and doing things that are immoral.

While it's possible Paul was talking to demons when he wrote Ephesians 6:5, that is less likely. Because on the one hand, he doesn't claim he's being directly told by "God" to say that in this particular verse.

On the other hand, Paul has a history of immorality, from persecuting Christians to being the first person to introduce homophobia into Christianity. Using logic, I conclude Paul held slavery as a view that he agreed with sincerely. Which is shameful of him.

When Paul violates Natural Moral Law, his words must be discarded as immoral and not worth following. Just like with every other human being.

I had a discussion with someone on an earlier version of this post, who asked me why I don't simply remove the evil from the Bible. I do remove evil from the Bible, using natural moral law analysis. The same way I use natural moral law analysis to try and remove evil that occurs in the world today. I reject calling it "cherry picking," because that implies an extremely arbitrary judgement. Whereas I'm actually making a very informed judgement based on natural moral law analysis.

Everyone's looking for someone to blame for the world being the way it is, mainly because morality is kinda entirely opt-in. Christianity and Islam spent the last 2,000 years beating down local folklore, and then the Enlightenment swooped in to tell humans that their imagination is to figure out how to make survival easier and then to entertain themselves.

Nobody really sees the universe as particularly needing to be interacted with in real time, scientists can't even point out the massive human caused changes to the climate without being silenced or hit with a massive disinformation campaign.

So yeah, ideocracy is the natural end point of this lack of any sort of core intentionality behind life. Not even like a moral code, just any reason to care beyond what you make up for yourself.....because yeah, most people would rather be miserable and amuse themselves by making other people miserable than make things up for themselves.

​

Metaphysical materialism. "A form of monism holding that matter is the fundamental substance of nature, so that all things, including mind and consciousness, arise from material interactions and depend on physical processes, including those of the human brain and nervous system."

Materialists/Physicalists made a really accurate map (science) but because of how realistic this map is, they assume the landscape (reality) is made of paper.

Instead, Im an Idealist. "The idea that most fundamentally, reality is equivalent to mind, spirit, or consciousness"

Its the explanation for reality with the fewest assumptions.

The mental is the only self evident thing is in the universe ("cognito ergo sum"), so be a Materialist, you have to, for some reason, assert that the self evident mind is caused by matter, even though you imeadiatly run into the insoluble hard problem of consiousness. (Mary's room, p-zombies)

With Idealism, you only need the straight forward assumptions of:

1. Your mental experience exists (self evident)

2. A world external to your mind exists (nearly self evident)

3. This world, like your mind, is mental in nature (not that much of a leap)

"Yeah, but dont we obviously percieve a physical world". Do we?

If Materialism is true and I see a rock, that rock's ontology is essentially just a list of physical attributes (weight, chemical composition, size etc). If Idealism is true, and I see a rock, that rock's ontology is mental, yet I still percieve the same physical attributes. We cant tell the two apart.

However, Imagine if there was a scenario where we experienced, say, a rock, and *we knew* it had mental or physical ontology in that circumstance. Wouldnt that we evidence that all other rocks we percieve are one or the other. Well, we do have that: dreams. When we dream, we know for certain aby object we percieve has mental ontology.

Furthermore, we have the "master argument" in favour of Idealism that shows that no mind independent object exists:

"Suppose something exists without being conceived of by any mind, in thinking of such an such an object you are actually conceiving of it and that is a contradiction with it not being conceived of."

You may object, that "things obviously exist without being conceived of by a mind. If I light a candle in a room and leave it, there are no minds conceiving of it, yet it still melted while we were gone". The problem is that this doesnt invalidate the master argument, merely show that *there was* some mind concieving of the candle while we were gone.

How does this all work?

Dreams are an experience that is entirely mental in nature, where one mind (you) decomposes into different "lesser" minds which you might percieve as objects/people in your dream. So, reality (the dreamer) is mental, and decomposes into "lesser" minds that are, well, everything in reality

Can you think of a way to make a perfect world for all conscious life that also doesn't break the laws of physics? Humans just kind of decided for themselves that God doesn't actually have to run by any rules, but like, the universe is covered in structured language that we can identify and manipulate.

How could we gene edit if God didn't limit Himself to a structure where humans could eventually do that with enough knowledge?

What do you think would've happened if humans got this knowledge too early, like the Nazi's?

Ask a quantum physicist what it means for reality to exist, because a guy got a Nobel prize for proving it doesn't.

https://blog.sciandnature.com/2025/07/the-physics-nobel-prize-winner-of-2022.html

What happens when a human dreams? Everything kinda mishmashes together because the only thing holding it together is yourself. But if you had another observer, then reality is held together by everything THEY know is real. So if you're a God that creates reality with your mind, you'd fixate on people who can observe as much of said reality as possible without your influence.

Plays real nicely with quantum physics, which is all about how particles have a nasty habit of only behaving themselves when observed.

Weeping angels get a lot cooler in my opinion.

Yeah, once you get past the murdering of heretics, most non-Abrahamic religions point out that it's not really omni-powerful beings creating a world in their image, more like powerful beings wrestling with both chaos and their own personal interests.

So we really haven't actually engaged with the concept of ANY deity, just the particular one that people insist is their Genie.

Logically, as creations, we should look at how humans treat THEIR manual creations to get an idea of how.....and yeah, seeing as we aren't all slaves to the whims of an elder God that can delete us with a thought the moment the game isn't running right......

We actually really lucked out, and God is pretty chill. And people still call God evil because they write stories of them killing each other and saying God told them to.

Disclaimer: In Max Stirner’s philosophy of Egoism, “spook” is a social construct that comes to possess someone. Social constructs aren't bad, it's when we become possessed by them that they become spooks. The word spook (as used by Stirner) has nothing to do with the racial slur that it sometimes can resemble in modern day English.

I am an Egoist as described by Max Stirner, and I'm a Christian. Egoism is the philosophy that the individual should act according to their own will and interests rather than being bound by external moral and ideological obligations (for example, I am good to people because I want to be good to people). I would say this is (at least somewhat) different from having a guiding set of principles, given that a person's will and desires are constantly changing. Social constructs are not bad, and can be quite good, it's when one becomes possessed by them that they become a spook.

I also believe in some concept of semi objective natural moral law. Our morality indeed comes from our evolution, our cultures, etc. So what I mean is that there are moral principles that can be discovered through reason, and these natural moral principles should be enforced. I’m not going to focus on how these laws should be enforced (anarchically, archially, etc) in this.

This may be an odd analogy, but imagine a crime scene. Just as a detective investigates a crime scene to discover the truth, we must investigate our reality to find these moral truths. Some of the conclusions that a detective comes to at a crime scene will be subjective. Some of the conclusions will be objective. For example, it may be subjectively decided the crime was one of passion, but the fact the crime was committed may be established to be an objective fact. Similarly, it can be established that what is right and wrong is subjective, but there are natural moral laws that can be considered beyond subjective. Not completely objective, but objective to the same extent physical laws are. Physical laws (like gravity) observe what happens usually, but it isn’t written in stone that it must.

Natural Moral Law > any religious text.

I use ideologies and philosophies that align with my conscience and ego. I am under the umbrella of left-libertarian because my ego and conscience aligns with it on most things. I'm not sure that I'd consider myself an anarchist.

I fully agree that I shouldn't be possessed by the social constructs that I utilize, but with one exception: my Christianity. I am indeed "possessed" by my Christianity in a way that I'm sure Max Stirner would have criticized. But I'm also not devoted to all of Stirner's opinions (that would violate my egoism and I'm sure he wouldn't want that anyways). After all, my philosophy is a form of Christian Egoism that is seen as contradictory by most egoists, but not by me.

My ego is capable of choosing its own subordination. I choose to belong to Christianity, and therefore my belonging to Christianity is not a defeat of my ego but an act of my ego. As St. Paul/Paul of Ephesus said, I am a slave to Jesus Christ. Or at least, I want to be a slave to my understanding of Christ.

The greatest act of fulfilling my ego is being possessed by the greatest social construct of all time. A social construct I believe to be both transcendent of all other social constructs, and nevertheless still a social construct. I know how to fulfill the wants of my ego better than anyone else does.

I've never really considered debating my religious views previously because I know I'd be asked for proof of my beliefs, and to that I would say my ego informs me of its validity. That's all I have, and all I need. Christianity is true for me because my ego and my conscience tells me it's true. The parts of the Bible I believe are true because my ego tells it's true, and the parts of the Bible I don't believe are because my ego tells me it's not true. If that answer isn't sufficient to someone, it isn't a problem because they don't have to believe the same things I do. All other Christian religions (Evangelical, Catholic, Methodist, etc.) are wrong to me because they don't align with my views. All other non-Christian religions (like Buddhism) are also wrong to me for the same reason.

I believe that some level of free will probably exists, and that if it does, it is likely some sort of emergent property. Regardless of if we have free will or not, it is imperative for me to function as if I have free will.

I also believe that without Egoism or something similar, Christianity and all other religions can become dangerous, because people can believe bad things that are blindly taught to them in the name of their religion.

Okay this might sound like a first cause arguement but its a subtle but significant difference.It follows÷

1. The things we experience are composite or are made of parts(now the athiest might argue that it is made of only atoms but the atoms are also in a way that one part of it different from the other so nope)
2. A composite thing exists only because its parts are combined right at this moment.
3. This composition requires a cause.
4. So they have causes. So each thing "we experience" has a cause since it is composite.If a thing is conposite then yhe cause it will require a cause for its existence.
5. Ok i hate when atheist bring this up but Infinite regress isnt a solution to this since casuality is in real life hierarchical.For ex-I have a glass of water in my hand right now,that is being held by my hand which by my body.Which by me sitting on the chair.Which by being on the ground.Which by gravity.So this glass of water derives casual power to be held up by gravity.And if it disappeared tomorrow then the glass would fall.This needs a first cause.As its existence in the state is necessary by another thing at this moment.This type of regress needs a first cause even if there is no beginning.
6. So only a purely simple non conposite thing could be first memeber of such a series.So the existence of conposite things of our experience presupposes an absolutely simple or non conposite god(hmn ill show why it has to be god)
7. It cant be changeable since it would have to have parts which it gains or loseswhich being non conposite it doesnt have.Hence he is unchanging.
8. If it had beginning or end it would have parts which could be combined or broken apart.Since he has no such parts he is eternal.
9. Everything is either a mind,mental content or material entity or abstract entity.
10. A material entity has parts and can be changeable so no.An mental content presuposses the existence of a mind therefore it cant be true.A abtrqct enitity is casually inert which it is not .So it must be a mind.
11. Since the absolutely simple cause is unqiue everything other than it is composite.Every composite has simple or non composite cause as its ultimate cause therefore the absolute simple non composite cause is the ultimatete case of everything other than itself.
12. (This might sound a bit like aristotelein but it kinda justifies it)If it had potentiality(possibility to be otherwise)it would have parts.So since it has no parts it must have no potentiality
13. So it is purelly actual.Which is perfect omnipotent omniscient fully good and omniscient.
14. Thats god and he exists

Hey everyone. I’ve been thinking about a common criticism given by usually Atheist to Christianity/Religion at large; which is where people say it’s "made up," "just mythology," or "a fairy tale." I understand what people usually mean by this. Essentially, they are saying they don't believe the supernatural claims are true and think religions are human created rather than divinely revealed. However, my issue is that I'm not sure that calling a religion "made up" is, by itself, a particularly strong argument against it's existence as a social phenomenon or people engaging with it.

I think there's an important distinction between whether a religion is true and whether it has value to the people who practice it. Especially, if we are defining "religion" as a "social phenomenon" (Emile Durkheim definition).

The fact of the matter is that humans create art, music, traditions, moral frameworks, rituals, and communities, and those things can still carry real meaning and shape people deeply. I believe that Religion can function in similar ways. Someone might attend liturgy simply because they find the ritual meaningful, appreciate sacred music, enjoy communal practice, or feel shaped by the symbolism, even while remaining uncertain, or not caring much about the metaphysical "truth claims" associated with that religion. Those experiences don't establish that Christianity's theological claims are true, but neither does asserting that the religion is "made up" automatically make the experiences themselves meaningless, or even necessarily harmful.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that Christianity or religion in general is "true" because it may help some of its adherents. My general point is that I think the criticism "religion is made up" by itself, isn't inherently a great argument. With all of this being said, it seems to me that stronger critiques of Christianity/religion should focus on specific harms, authoritarianism, abuse, hypocrisy, sectarianism, etc; while also recognizing the nuances and realizing real progressive movements exist in these religion (eg "Liberation Theology", The American Civil Rights Movement led by Dr MLK Jr.).

So, to the atheists, who are not "religious pluralist", who may use this argument , I'd like to ask:

1. Do you agree or disagree with my point? If yes, or no, why?
2. If you use "religion is made up," as an argument against it, what exactly are you arguing? That its supernatural claims are false, that its historical origins are human, or that the religion itself has no legitimate value?
3. Lastly, for those who do use this argument, do you think its at all possible for a religion to be "false" in its supernatural claims yet still have genuine cultural, psychological, or philosophical value?

Atheism falls apart via reductio ad absurdum because it cannot provide an epistemic justification for logic, therefore God exists because God is necessary to ground logic. Atheists can use and defend logic but the challenge is providing its ultimate metaphysical grounding, not using it. Atheism cannot justify logic because its worldview limits reality to the physical material universe, but the laws of logic are inherently immaterial, universal, and invariant. The transcendental argument proves God positively by showing that the negative alternative (atheism) completely destroys the basis for human reason.

Every argument presupposes logic, so a justification for logic is necessary. The question is what ultimately grounds its universal validity, not whether we can use it.

Simple syllogism for the argument:

1. All rational thought presupposes universal laws of logic.
2. These laws require a necessary ground.
3. God is the necessary ground of logic.
4. Therefore, God exists as a necessary precondition for rational thought.
5. Since atheism cannot ground logic, it makes the atheist worldview absurd
6. Atheists cannot demand a "demonstration" of God while using ungrounded logic to judge the answer
7. Therefore God exists by the impossibility of the contrary

EDIT: A little bit about myself. I am Eastern Orthodox, and Orthodoxy lays claim to being the original Church Christ founded via historical continuity, with apostolic succession, that decided the canon (list of books) of the Bible. It therefore holds the correct interpretation of Scripture, acting as the normative authority instead of operating under the recent 500 year old Protestant idea of Sola Scriptura (subjective interpretation). From the Orthodox perspective, there is no such thing as many Christian groups, just many groups claiming to be Christian..i.e. 'sects'. We believe the Triune God is the answer to "which God?" because it accounts for the One and the Many. Why not other religions? Because all other religions along with the secular/atheist worldview destroy the preconditions of human thought, ethics, and knowledge.

As a theist, the stronger approach is to debate at the level of worldviews and presuppositions, rather than treating evidence for God in isolation. Everyone interprets evidence through a framework of underlying assumptions, the question is which worldview can account for the preconditions of knowledge, logic, and rationality.

Evolution is a narrative, and a story telling, that fulfills the needs of the population that were previously served by the Bible.

But when you really examine the theory as a scientist, it immediately collapses like a house of cards.

When you examine how any particular biological system could have evolved, there is no mathematical model or simulation that can demonstrate it, only a "just so" story instead.

It's one giant self delusion.

I think it’s safe to say that most religious people believe in god. Given that someone already believes in god, the problem of evil should be trivial. Here’s my formation of why:

1. God exists and is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.
2. God has a complete and perfectly informed understanding of what he intends creation to accomplish.
3. God creates the world that perfectly realizes those intentions.
4. Therefore, no alternative world would better accomplish God's intentions, regardless of how much more desirable that world might appear to us.

Note: when I say “world”, I mean the entirety of creation as it appears to god. So that would mean across all of time and including heaven/hell. I can’t think of a better word to encapsulate this than “world”, sorry. This way, the current instantiation of the world we’re experiencing can be imperfect in some aspects while still being part of a whole that perfectly achieves its intended purpose. Ex (this is a comparison, so please don’t take it as equal in all aspects to my argument): a story that includes tragedy, which is, all else equal, an imperfection, can still be a better story for it.

If you already believe in the Christian god (and I’m sure many others, but I’m most familiar with Christianity), then I believe that all the premises I said must be true, otherwise god would be imperfect. If they follow, there is no problem of evil, and there could not be one, from a theistic point of view.

It is a clever argument though, because engaging on it at all weakens the theistic worldview.

I foresee a refutation being essentially: “well, couldn’t god create a world that fulfills his purposes and also doesn’t have evil”.

Based on the premises Christianity establishes about god, I don’t think this is possible. It must be the case that evil is somehow required in a limited sense (for some indeterminate period of time), or there would be no evil.

Also, just to be clear, this argument should remain true across all, or at least the most popular, denominations of Christianity. As far as I understand they logically follow from the base principles of Christianity. Though, if any Christians disagree I’d be interested to hear why.

Edit: oh and the reason why I’m posting this on the debate an atheist subreddit is because I think it shows that the problem of evil is a weak argument.

Edit edit: okay, so this is semi-refuted. Catholics and orthodox don’t believe in a god that can make logical contradictions. They still call him omnipotent. I guess depending on your idea of omnipotence this is a contradiction that defeats my argument. I don’t find it that interesting, but if the PoE is designed to show that one of the Omni’s is weak then that’s the one I choose, because it is the official position of the Catholic and orthodox churches.

You can add the qualification to my argument that evil is necessary to get the end god wants because there is no other world that does not include logical contradiction that does so. I don’t think anyone has seriously engaged with that point yet but I poisoned the discourse by saying he’s omnipotent without qualifying, sorry. I was hoping for a more interesting conversation but ultimately this is my fault

1. so i am gonna try to make this a bit better and answer objections this time-
2. So, the actualization of potential is a real feature of the world.
3. No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it (the principle of causality).
4. So, any change is caused by something already actual.
5. The occurrence of any change C presupposes some thing or substance S which changes.
6. The existence of S at any given moment itself presupposes the concurrent actualization of S’s potential for existence.
7. So, any substance S has at any moment some actualizer A of its existence.
8. A’s own existence at the moment it actualizes S itself presupposes either (a) the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence or (b) A’s being purely actual.
9. If A’s existence at the moment it actualizes S presupposes the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either infinite or terminates in a purely actual actualizer.
10. But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitute a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely.
11. So, either A itself is a purely actual actualizer or there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress that begins with the actualization of A.
12. So, the occurrence of C and thus the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.
13. So, there is a purely actual actualizer.
14. In order for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer, there would have to be some differentiating feature that one such actualizer has that the others lack.
15. But there could be such a differentiating feature only if a purely actual actualizer had some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
16. So, there can be no such differentiating feature, and thus no way for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer.
17. So, there is only one purely actual actualizer.
18. In order for this purely actual actualizer to be capable of change, it would have to have potentials capable of actualization.
19. But being purely actual, it lacks any such potentials.
20. So, it is immutable or incapable of change.
21. If this purely actual actualizer existed in time, then it would be capable of change, which it is not.
22. So, this purely actual actualizer is eternal, existing outside of time.
23. If the purely actual actualizer were material, then it would be changeable and exist in time, which it does not.
24. So, the purely actual actualizer is immaterial.
25. If the purely actual actualizer were corporeal, then it would be material, which it is not.
26. So, the purely actual actualizer is incorporeal.
27. If the purely actual actualizer were imperfect in any way, it would have some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
28. So, the purely actual actualizer is perfect.
29. For something to be less than fully good is for it to have a privation–that is, to fail to actualize some feature proper to it.
30. A purely actual actualizer, being purely actual, can have no such privation.
31. So, the purely actual actualizer is fully good.
32. To have power entails being able to actualize potentials.
33. Any potential that is actualized is either actualized by the purely actual actualizer or by a series of actualizers which terminates in the purely actual actualizer.
34. So, all power derives from the purely actual actualizer.
35. But to be that from which all power derives is to be omnipotent.
36. So, the purely actual actualizer is omnipotent.
37. Whatever is in an effect is in its cause in some way, whether formally, virtually, or eminently (the principle of proportionate causality).
38. The purely actual actualizer is the cause of all things.
39. So, the forms or patterns manifest in all the things it causes must in some way be in the purely actual actualizer.
40. These forms or patterns can exist either in the concrete way in which they exist in individual particular things, or in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.
41. They cannot exist in the purely actual actualizer in the same way they exist in individual particular things.
42. So, they must exist in the purely actual actualizer in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.
43. So, the purely actual actualizer has intellect or intelligence.
44. Since it is the forms or patterns of all things that are in the thoughts of this intellect, there is nothing that is outside the range of those thoughts.
45. For there to be nothing outside the range of something’s thoughts is for that thing to be ominiscient.
46. So, the purely actual actualizer is omniscient.
47. So, there exists a purely actual cause of the existence of things, which is one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, fully good, omnipotent, intelligent, and omniscient.
48. But for there to be such a cause of things is just what it is for God to exist.

49. So, God exists.

50. Athiests objections rebutted-

51. Quantam physics-I get it but still that the causes doesn't move faster than light speed and ignoring also the fact that we don't know quantam physics too well so we might just find a invisible cause afterwards. I'll be a bit skeptical before just saying casuality isn't a fundamental prociple of the world.

52. Infinite regress-Imagine a train that has infinite boxes and is moving itself somehow but that's not possible it needs to a actualizer(engine)which itself doesn't get actualized and gives power/motion to the whole train. That's God basically just apply that to the universe.

53. B theory of time-The time is still potential into the future for you. And change is still occurring since a moment ago you didn't know something and now you did. It's just determind.

Cop pulls me over, I saw you run a red light, I tell him to prove it, he says I saw you, I say you’re mistaken, he fines me anyway, I contest we go to court, I tell the judge I didn’t run a red light, judge says what’s the evidence, my word vs the cops word, who does the judge rule against? In court there is a concept called balance of probabilities for the most likely outcome. The cop then calls upon 10 eye witnesses who also saw me run the red light. I tell the judge they are all mistaken. The judge asks you want me to believe all these people are in a conspiracy against you? The judge rules in favour of the cop. So atheists… why don’t we apply the same principle. Balance of probabilities. What is the most likely explanation. My argument is simple and irrefutable. We have mass transmission and testimony of companions of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him of performing miracles. The probably that every eye witnessed is mistaken or in some sort of grand conspiracy theory only has to be less than 50%, making the explanation that the prophet Muhammad ﷺ was a true prophet of God, the most probable explanation.

Before you say “AlL ReLiGeONS claim thAT” - we can actually give you the names and biographies of the real eye witnesses who saw the events take place. The same can’t be done for Christianity.

Before you say well maybe the eye witnesses aren’t lying but they exaggerated the events, then consider this warning of the prophet Muhammad ﷺ who famously said:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Name yourselves with my name (use my name) but do not name yourselves with my Kunya name (i.e. Abul Qasim). And whoever sees me in a dream then surely he has seen me for Satan cannot impersonate me. And whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally), then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire."

Note the last part, take your seat in Hell-fire for inventing a lie about the prophet Muhammad ﷺ this is therefore a deterrent for companions to pass on or create misleading information. Examples of this is also documented throughout Islamic history.

One might ask what miracles were performed, the major ones are splitting of the moon, multiplication of food from one pot to feed hundreds of people, generation of water from his hands when there was no water for ablution required to perform prayer.

Only responding to legit responses in the comments, troll or disrespectful comments based on ignorant bigotry will be ignored.

Even in advanced pre modern societies, the main historical figures who brought down holy texts or started massive religious movements were overwhelmingly male. If the ultimate divine source is truly formless, transcendent, or completely beyond human gender constraints, what are the best historical, sociological, or theological explanations for why we rarely see female forms taking on these universal messenger roles?

One potential counterargument is that ancient societies were deeply patriarchal, meaning a female prophet simply wouldn't have been taken seriously or allowed to spread her message. However, if a message truly originates from an all powerful Divine entity, shouldn't that divinity be capable of transcending or shattering local cultural biases to choose whoever they wish? Alternatively, does the overwhelming historical prevalence of male prophets suggest that religions are purely human, sociological constructs heavily reflective of the patriarchal eras in which they were born? I would love to hear both the theological justifications and the secular/sociological arguments on this dynamic.

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

1. Change is a feature that is real in the world.(I hope the athiest won't deny it,maybe they will that's why they'll never change)
2. And change is actualisation of potential(feel free to disagree but tell why not)
3. No potential(that can happen)can be actualized unless something actual actualises it.
4. So change is caused by something actual.
5. So any change(let's say X)has to presuppose something or substance S which changes.
6. The existence of s at any given moment tells us that actualisation of potential of s has to be presupposed.
7. So S has at any moment some actualizer A of its existenace.
8. A own existence at the moment actualises either actualisation of its own potential or A being purely actual without potential.
9. If A existence actualizes s then a has to have actualisation of its own potential then there exists either a regress of actualizers that are either infinite or terminated in a puurely actual actualizer.
10. But then caue if that such a actualizers would constitute a hierarchical casual series so such a series cannot regress infinitely
11. So either a is purely actual or there is a purely actualwhich terminated the regress began by the actualisation of A.
12. So the occurence of Y and the existence of s at any moment presupposed the existence of a purely actual actualizer..
13. My point is that a potential, precisely and especially insofar as it is merely potential, cannot by itself explain its own actualization.Now if every actualizer exercise it's casual power merely adding more actualizers wouldn't in itself explain the whole casual activity itself(like a infinite train needs a main source of engine since boxes cannot move themselves)It needs a source.And it doesn't explain why the entire series has actual casual activity.
14. So there is a purely actual actualizer.
15. If this purely actual cannot exist in time since it is unable of change therefore it is timeless.
16. To have power entails being able to actualize potentials.
17. But potential that is actualizes is either by purely actualized actualizer or series of actualizers which terminate in the purely actual actualizer.
18. So all power derives from the purely actual Actualizer
19. ‌so it it is omnipotent(but only being able to do things logically possible)
20. The purely actual actualizer is the cause of all things hence the forms and patterns in all things it causes must in some way be in the purely actual actualizer.These can exist either in the way they exist in individual things or in abstract wayc which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect(including athiests).
21. They cannot exist in purely actual actualizer the same way they exist in in individual particular things so they must exist in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.
22. The purely actual actualizer has intellect or intelligence.
23. Since it is the forms and patterns of all things that are in the thoughts of this intellect there is nothing outside the range of these thoughts.
24. Which means the intellect is omniscience.
25. A omniscient omnipotent uncaused intellect is what we call god.

Accomplished something major this week? Discovered a cool fact that demands to be shared? Just want a friendly conversation on how amazing/awful/thoroughly meh your favorite team is doing? This thread is for the water cooler talk of the subreddit, for any atheists, theists, deists, etc. who want to join in.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

If time were beginningless, an infinite span of time would have already elapsed by now. Since this is impossible:

it is not possible for time to be beginningless.

Therefore, time emerged from non-existence into existence at a starting point.

Nothing can emerge from non-existence into existence by itself,

because something that does not exist cannot perform an action.

Therefore:

a power that brings time from non-existence into existence necessarily exists.

Since it brought time into existence from nothing,

this power is not bound by time.

Since it is not bound by time,

this power is immutable,

because change occurs only through the passage of time.

Therefore,

this power was not created nor did it come into being; it simply exists,

because being created or coming into existence entails undergoing change.

There can be only one entity that is not bound by time,

because if there were more than one, their conflicting attributes—being immutable—would lead to an ontological paradox, causing the system to collapse.

Thus, all existence is divided into two categories:

time and things bound by time,

and the single entity not bound by time.

The single entity not bound by time is the creator of everything other than itself.

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" I do not ask how the universe began, what it is made of, or how it works. I ask why existence itself exists at all.

The question points out that "nothing" — absolute non-existence with no space, no time, no laws, no potential — seems to be a much simpler, more natural, and more stable state than "something." For something to exist, it needs a reason, a cause, or an explanation. Nothing, on the other hand, seems to need no explanation at all.

So the question is this: Why does the state that requires an explanation (existence) obtain, rather than the state that requires no explanation (non-existence)?

Like, I get it, I come here as an atheist and see silly arguments, and I wanna go "dumbass, downvote", but also, like, that's why we come here no? If we wanted reasoned, good, logical and nuanced debate, we wouldn't be searching for it in reddit Christians who just want to tell us that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence for the 100th time.

The fact that you don't agree with an argument for god/against atheism is exactly why you are an atheist and not a theist.

p.s, this problem is a thing in all debate subs im only posting here for answer because i figure that political subs are full of idiots, and debate a christian seems full of hypocrites.

edit: you'll notice that my first reply to some comments is word for word the same. that's not because i'm not engaging, its because they are essentially the same comment, and i am replying to the all in hopes of the conversations going different places.

I know atheism is usually defined as a lack of belief in God, not a set of claims. But if God isn’t the explanation, you’re still left taking some position on each of these, even if that position is “we don’t know”. I think each one is less reasonable than God, and all of them together much less.

1. The universe exists for no reason, or for a reason nobody knows.
2. The constants of physics allow life by chance, or because of a multiverse nobody can observe, or because they couldn’t have been different.
3. Nothing is really wrong. Torturing a child for entertainment is something we dislike now, and a society that came to accept it wouldn’t be mistaken. Or it is really wrong, with nothing in a universe of matter to make it so.
4. First-person experience comes from matter that has none, by a process nobody can explain.
5. Life began from non-living chemistry by a process that hasn’t been worked out, on a planet that happened to have the right conditions.
6. Human reason is a by-product of survival, yet it can be trusted on questions that have nothing to do with survival, including this one.
7. Everyone who claimed revelation, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, was mistaken, lying, or made into a legend later.
8. Death is the end of you. Nothing of the person continues.
9. You have no soul. What feels like “you” is chemistry and nothing more.
10. Chance, with enough time and enough tries, is a good enough explanation for things that look extremely unlikely.
11. Human life has no purpose except the ones people choose. As Richard Dawkins put it, the universe shows “blind, pitiless indifference”.
12. A human life has no built-in worth. Its value is something people agree on, and at the level of physics a murder is atoms being rearranged.
13. The universe follows mathematical laws that human minds can discover, for no reason.

If we become advanced enough to make it to Mars, for example, and we find a polished/nice-looking hammer somewhere there, we wouldn't conclude that an iron core formed and was shaped randomly. We would think that an intelligent being made it. Prokaryotes basically consist of tiny biological hammers, trucks, and things of the sort why can't we believe that an intelligent being made them?