The Problem of Suffering doesn't bother me much on its own, because I find freewill theodicies and the Job sentiment (we can't understand why God would do what he does) fairly compelling. However, I've been struggling with it a lot more when I try to understand the theology of New Creation. Usually, the freewill theodicy proposes that suffering is a result of God giving humans freewill, so even though God is all-powerful and good, the good of freewill outweighs the bad of suffering. However, this raises very interesting questions about the New Creation described in the Biblical narrative. If there is no suffering in New Creation (Rev 21:4), then how will there be freewill? How is it possible to have a universe without suffering in the New Creation if freewill in the original creation brought suffering into the universe? To put it one last way, how is the paradise of New Creation different from the paradise of the original creation such that there will not be another Fall?

This is a question that nobody has been able to satisfyingly answer for me. We have free will in heaven and are able to not sin, so why didn’t God just make us like that from the get go if it’s possible to have free will and not sin?

There’s also the common catholic belief that Mary was sinless, if it’s demonstrably possible for humans to be born without sin—why didn’t God just do that for everybody else?

I hope I was able to word my issues well

I don’t understand, I’m a good person, I believe in god, but before I turned 18 I was sinful and an atheist, I did drugs, partied, and nearly died multiple times, one time I lost consciousness on drugs and went through hell; at least it seemed like it, I was being tormented, felt an intense emotional pain that cut deep into my soul and I knew at that moment it was the pain of creation from sin, hate, violence, and trauma, it hurt so bad, and I saw so many awful terrifying things, it lasted less than a minute but it was so horrific I turned to god once I woke up, still struggling with my faith to determine which religion that god who sent me there was and I found Jesus, I truly understand the song amazing grace “twas grace that taught my heart to fear ‘twas grace my fear relieved. It was only a minute of hell four years ago and I’m still so terrified of going back there, I feel as though no matter how much I repent, swear off drugs, and try to make reparations to god, it’s still not enough, I was barely 18 when it happened and it really messed me up that my entrance into adulthood was horrifying, it left me with a major fear of death and the fear that god will abandon me for my sins, I have a lifetime left, I’m only 22 and I’ve had so many moments of growing closer to god, with wisdom and passion, but I’m so worried because I did this, and god saved my life, changed the course of my life, it’s not my life anymore, it’s something I can’t really explain, I’m less angry, less depressed, at peace more often than ever before, but I’m still so terrified of hell, the worst part of that vision was me being forced to watch myself commit suicide and falling on the floor dying. I’m terrified of what would’ve happened if I did, but truth is this fear is probably irrational, I don’t think god would allow a depressed 18 year old who self medicated with drugs go to hell, that kid I was was a prisoner, trapped in a vicious cycle of psychological addiction, beaten up by the world and cast aside in a moment of weakness. I think I know god loves me, but the fear is so overwhelming what do I do?

can anyone teach me how atheism ultimately leads to absurdity? i’ve seen a few presuppositional apologists start with this and i’m deeply fascinated now

I am very enthusiastic about debating for Christianity and things of that sort, but it seems like whenever I post something online, at least a dozen atheists and other believers of something attack what I say and pick it apart to make me look evil, or just stupid for how wrong I am. I’ve been studying and gathering information for a while now and I’m starting to spread the word with confidence. Is that just normal? Should that be what I expect to happen? Or are my arguments bad? It’s just hard to receive all of the negativity when all I want to do is be nice and spread the word.

This is modeled after the first stage of Josh Rasmussen's modal argument from contingency.

I'm requesting any feedback.

1. Contingent things exist. (There are possible worlds where they do not exist.)
2. All contingent things (including the set of all contingent things) could possibly have conditions (either physical, metaphysical or logical) to bring them into existence.
3. If no necessary thing is possible, then some contingent things (including the set of all contingent things) couldn’t possibly have conditions to bring them into existence.
4. Therefore, since without a necessary thing not all contingent things (including the set of all contingent things) could possibly have conditions to bring them into existence, a necessary thing is possible.
5. A necessary thing is either impossible or necessary.
6. Therefore, since a necessary thing is not impossible, a necessary thing (at least one) exists.

Hello, I’ve just joined this sub, so apologies if I’m posting incorrectly, but I would love to get your thoughts, logical responses, and scriptural support to answer/counter this seemingly, reasonable objection of the faith.

Argument used: “How can you believe in a loving God, who thrusts existence upon us, then requires steadfast allegiance to His existence and Kingdom, and then punishes all unbelievers with eternal punishment and torment for their rejection of His rule and reign?”

Thoughts around:

• punishment marching crime
• how can a Christian enjoy eternity if they knew their mother was being tormented in hell?
• God created everything, including free will, but then punishes people for using that freedom
• what about the poor 19yr old brain washed with Islam who dies of starvation in Africa without ever hearing of Jesus?

Einstein, Flatland, light and atheism.

I am wondering what your thoughts on this are. I have been looking at Relativity recently and this line of reasoning came together.

I would like to tie these things together in this post.

1)  The classic 1800's book, Flatland

2)  Einstein's theory of relativity

3. This Scriptural verse, "He (God) alone possesses immortality and lives in unapproachable light..." (1 Timothy 6:16)

Here we go......

Einstein, said time slows down the faster we go.  At the speed of light, time behaves differently. (It may even stop from our perspective, per Einstein.)

Interesting that the Bible verse above, before Einstein's theory of relativity, basically said the same thing...

Using the specific words, "unapproachable light" and calling God "immortal" (unaffected by time) in the same verse. Interesting.  Same thing Einstein would say about any being who lived in light.  Unapproachable and immortal.

For us (humans), going the speed of light is not possible because we have mass.  Einstein said humanity has a cosmic speed limit because we have mass.

But God is not physical (has no mass) therefore it is not a problem for Him to dwell in the dimension of light as 1 Timothy 6:16 above says. 

Now onto Flatland, the 19th century book.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

If twins could talk in the womb, imagine this conversation:

T1.  Do you hear that?  It sounds like there is a world outside of this womb.  That we are not alone. T2.  That's ridiculous.  There's no proof anything exists outside of this womb.  We have never seen anything outside of this womb. T1.  Then how do you explain those sounds? T2.  Mother of the gaps fallacy.  The organs next to this womb are certainly capable of producing noises that appear to make it feel like we are not alone, but the noises can be easily explained away.

My point is this.  Do you see how T2s lack of knowledge about the universe limits him to a false conclusion.

And this is where the book Flatland comes in.

Imagine observing a flat, living being, in only a 2D - two dimensional universe. Only an X and Y axis. Living inside a flat piece of paper.  It would be impossible for such a dweller to even imagine such a thing, as going up/down, because they lack knowledge of another dimension. 

Now "we" certainly know it is possible, but "they" would not know this, because the dimensions they can only observe, limit their thinking.

Now upgrade to us and God. 

We live in a three-dimensional world, but remember, Scripture states that God dwells in light.  A dimension we know nothing of, when it comes to existence.

Einstein gave us a small theoretical window into it, but essentially we know nothing of that dimension. 

So my points are these: 

1.  If God exists and He dwells in light it is something we know very little about.

2. It is illogical to be an atheist when they have so little knowledge of the universe to begin with.  Like the twin T2 in the womb.

Being an agnostic, I can understand, but not being an atheist.

I was having a conversation in which I described damnation with a little more nuance then just "turn or burn."

I think I agree with this position that I've copy/pasted.

What would you advise me when I am approached with this perspective again?

The main reason I'm pushing at all is that a lot of Christians I've talked to get atheism or other religions confused with "denying Christ", and say "people want to be in hell because they hate God"

If you can understand my point that there are a lot of people out there who would be happy to love Christ if they believed in him, but they might die without ever being convinced he's real, then that's the point I want to make.

Those are the like who wouldn't be in hell "happy to be away from the fraud god" because those people actually want to live in alignment with truth.

To make this personal, I can speak for myself: I try to live a good life, I consider my moral choices, I celebrate the beauty of the earth and of all life, and I wonder if there is a God. I've heard too many mixed messages about Christianity to believe in it, but I have heard some descriptions that are really beautiful.

If I died and found out one of the loving, ethical versions of Jesus existed, I'd be overjoyed. I'd have no desire to get away from him. I'd be relieved that there is a benevolent creator looking out for us.

So, by many theologies I'd still go to hell because I didn't pray to Jesus or accept his sacrifice in this lifetime. But presumably Jesus knows that I would love him if I knew him. I just received too many mixed messages from Christians on earth, and nothing convincing.

4th on the list but officially Rule 3a: Boo Bots (AI Generated post/comments)

The use of AI to facilitate arguments is not consistent with the goal of this sub. Iron sharpens Iron implies humans building each other up. To assess this https://www.scribbr.com/ai-detector/ and other AI detection tools will be employed when a post/comment is suspected of lacking the human touch.

I am not asking you guys to witch hunt, but I am starting to see more users employing thoughtlessness because AI can just do it for us. Except this isn't consistent with how the bible encourages us to build one another up. Prov 27:17. Man building up man.

Can a machine allow us to lift more, move faster, and think deeper...ABSOLUTELY!!!!

Should we defer to the machine for our ethical positions and to the encouragement our brothers and sisters need? No!

So if you are using AI to do some fact checking for you, great! Allowing AI to draw some comparisons for you that you may not have detected, fine! But you as the human are the one called to build up the body of Christ.

Keep it human or keep it pushin!

In our second episode on C.S. Lewis' 'Mere Christianity' we went a bit further into Lewis' notions of universal morality and justice. Lewis discusses his history as an atheist and believing the universe to be cruel and unjust - but ultimately came up against the question of what did unjust mean without a god who was good running the show, so to speak.

This is related to a post I made last week, but I am still butting up against this idea and I think there is something to it. If justice is purely subjective (simply based on the societal norms at play), then something like slavery was once just and is now unjust. I am not on board with this.

Taking it from a different angle, there are ideas of 'natural rights' bestowed upon you by the universe, and so it is unjust to strip someone of those - but this is getting dangerously close to the idea of a god (or at least an objective standard) as a source of justice.

What do you think?

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it?...Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning. (CS Lewis - Mere Christianity)

Links to the podcast, if you're interested
Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pdamx-30-2-lord-liar-or-lunatic/id1691736489?i=1000671621469

Youtube - https://youtu.be/X4gYpaJjwl0?si=Mks2_RkfIC0iH_y3

One was the leading evangelical apologist and the other one of the great postwar continental theologians.

Is there any knowledge if they ever met or interacted with each other?

For the podcast that I run, we started reading C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity". In it, he develops a rational argument for christian belief. A major portion of his opening argument states that morality is universally understood - suggesting that all people around the world, regardless of culture, have essentially the same notions of 'right' and 'wrong'. He goes on to argue that this can be seen in the morality of selflessness - suggesting that an ethic of selflessness is universal.

I would go so far as to say that a sense of morality is universal - but I am not sure if the suggestion that all people have the same morality, more or less, is defensible. Further, I completely disagree on the selfishness point. I would argue that a morality of selflessness is certainly not universal (look to any libertarian or objectivist philosophy).

What do you think?

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked. (Lewis, Mere Christianity)

If you are interested, here are links to the episode:
Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pdamx-30-1-the-lion-the-witch-and-the-christian/id1691736489?i=1000670896154

Youtube - https://youtu.be/hIWj-lk2lpk?si=PaiZbHuHnlMompmN

Evo-Naturalism: The Godless Religion

Introduction and Etymology

The term "evo-naturalism" is a fusion of two key concepts: "evo", short for evolution, and "naturalism", which refers to the philosophical position that everything in the universe can be explained by natural causes without any need for supernatural or metaphysical elements. Together, "evo-naturalism" embodies a comprehensive, godless worldview in which evolutionary processes are not limited to biology but extend to the entire framework of existence. This worldview posits that all aspects of reality—cosmology, biology, psychology, and society—can be explained through the lens of evolution and natural causes, with no room for divine intervention or higher purpose.

The etymology of "evo-naturalism" highlights the way evolutionary theory is intertwined with naturalism to create a holistic view of reality. This worldview claims that natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms not only shape life but also govern the development of the universe, human consciousness, and morality. By integrating these two ideas, evo-naturalism presents itself as a complete explanation of reality while positioning itself in direct opposition to theistic and metaphysical worldviews.

This article examines evo-naturalism as a godless religion, outlining its doctrinal framework, which relies heavily on unverifiable assumptions, its dogmatic nature, and its suppression of alternative perspectives.

Holistic View of Reality

Evo-naturalism is not merely a scientific explanation of biological processes; it offers a holistic view of reality that seeks to explain everything from the origins of the universe to human ethics and social structures. The reach of "evo" extends beyond the biological realm to encompass the cosmos and the human condition. Evo-naturalism provides a naturalistic explanation for every dimension of existence, claiming that all changes—whether in living organisms, physical laws, or societal behaviors—are the product of natural evolutionary processes.

In this framework, human consciousness, morality, and culture are seen as byproducts of evolutionary forces, shaped by the survival needs of our ancestors. There is no place for spiritual or divine intervention; instead, everything is understood through the lens of materialism and evolution. Evo-naturalism's holistic approach attempts to reduce all complexity in the universe to mechanistic and naturalistic processes, which supposedly govern the entire cosmos in an unbroken chain of cause and effect.

While evo-naturalism offers a seemingly all-encompassing framework, it relies on a number of unverifiable assumptions—ideas that cannot be directly observed or tested but are treated as foundational truths.

The Doctrinal Framework of Evo-Naturalism

Like any religious or philosophical belief system, evo-naturalism rests on a set of core doctrines that guide its followers in their understanding of the world. These doctrines form the doctrinal framework of evo-naturalism, providing its adherents with a comprehensive way to explain all phenomena through natural processes. However, many of these doctrines are built upon unverifiable assumptions that are accepted as fact despite the lack of direct empirical evidence.

1. The Primacy of Natural Causes: Evo-naturalism holds that all phenomena, from the formation of galaxies to the development of human consciousness, can be fully explained by natural causes. There is no need for supernatural explanations because, according to this doctrine, the material universe and its processes are sufficient to account for all of reality. This assumption, while central to evo-naturalism, is itself unverifiable—it presupposes that there is no realm beyond the material, an assumption that cannot be empirically proven.

2. Evolution as the Grand Narrative: In evo-naturalism, evolution is not just a biological process but the driving force behind the development of everything in the universe. From the creation of stars to the emergence of complex life forms, everything is seen as the product of evolutionary forces. This grand narrative extends to human consciousness, morality, and culture, which are understood as the result of adaptive behaviors favored by natural selection. However, the vast evolutionary transformations required to explain the complexity of life and the universe are unverifiable—they are inferred from limited evidence and require a leap of faith in processes that cannot be directly observed or replicated.

3. Deep Time: Central to evo-naturalism is the concept of deep time—the vast stretches of time necessary for evolutionary processes to occur. Deep time is a theoretical construct used to justify the gradual development of life and the cosmos over billions of years. While the notion of deep time is necessary to the evo-naturalistic framework, it remains an unverifiable assumption—an inference based on interpretations of natural data, rather than something that can be directly experienced or tested.

4. Reductionism and Human Identity: Evo-naturalism asserts that human beings, like all other life forms, are nothing more than highly evolved animals. Human consciousness, morality, and free will are seen as emergent properties of physical processes, reducible to the brain's biochemical functions and shaped by evolutionary pressures. This reductionist view strips humans of any inherent spiritual or moral significance, instead viewing them solely through the lens of survival and adaptation. The assumption that human identity and behavior can be fully explained by natural causes, without reference to any higher meaning or purpose, is another unverifiable assumption that evo-naturalism depends on to maintain its coherence.

This doctrinal framework is essential to evo-naturalism, as it provides a comprehensive way to understand the universe while excluding any possibility of divine action or metaphysical truth. However, the reliance on unverifiable assumptions places evo-naturalism in the realm of belief rather than purely empirical science.

The Dogmatic Nature of Evo-Naturalism

Despite its claims to be a rational and evidence-based worldview, evo-naturalism exhibits many characteristics of dogmatism. Just as religious systems insist on the acceptance of certain doctrines without question, evo-naturalism demands adherence to its core principles, even when those principles rest on unprovable foundations.

One of the clearest examples of evo-naturalism's dogmatic nature is its strict adherence to methodological naturalism—the idea that science must be confined to explanations based on natural causes, with no allowance for the supernatural or divine. While this approach is often presented as essential to scientific inquiry, it functions as a philosophical gatekeeper, preventing any consideration of alternative explanations, such as intelligent design or the possibility of a creator. This rigid adherence to naturalism is not based on empirical evidence but on the assumption that no supernatural realm exists.

Another example of evo-naturalism's dogmatism is its insistence on macroevolution as the only valid explanation for the diversity of life. While microevolution—small changes within species—is well-documented, macroevolution—the large-scale transformations required to produce new species—remains speculative and unobserved. Despite this, macroevolution is treated as an undeniable truth within evo-naturalism, and those who question it are often dismissed as unscientific or irrational, regardless of the legitimacy of their critiques.

This dogmatic insistence on certain doctrines, particularly those that cannot be empirically verified, positions evo-naturalism as a belief system rather than a purely scientific methodology. Just as religious systems defend their dogma against heresy, evo-naturalism defends its doctrines against any challenges, ensuring that its core principles remain unquestioned.

Suppression of Alternative Views

Like traditional religious systems, evo-naturalism actively suppresses alternative views that challenge its core doctrines. This suppression is particularly evident in how evo-naturalism handles critiques from proponents of intelligent design or other metaphysical perspectives.

One of the clearest examples of this suppression is seen in the academic and scientific communities' treatment of intelligent design. Proponents of intelligent design argue that certain features of the natural world, such as the complexity of biological systems, are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than by undirected natural processes. However, within evo-naturalism, such explanations are often dismissed as pseudoscience or religiously motivated, without genuine engagement with the evidence or arguments presented.

This suppression extends beyond intelligent design to any viewpoint that challenges the naturalistic narrative. In educational settings, students are often presented with evo-naturalism's doctrines as settled facts, with little room for questioning or considering alternative explanations. Metaphysical explanations, particularly those that involve divine action, are marginalized or dismissed outright, ensuring that evo-naturalism remains the dominant framework in scientific and cultural discourse.

The suppression of alternative views within evo-naturalism mirrors the way religious systems protect their dogma from heretical ideas. By excluding metaphysical explanations from consideration and marginalizing dissenting perspectives, evo-naturalism ensures that its worldview remains uncontested, functioning as an intellectual monopoly on the explanation of reality.

Conclusion: Evo-Naturalism as a Godless Religion

Evo-naturalism presents itself as a rational, scientific approach to understanding reality, yet it functions much like a religion in its reliance on unverifiable assumptions, its dogmatic adherence to core doctrines, and its suppression of alternative views. At its core, evo-naturalism is built on a series of metaphysical assumptions that cannot be empirically tested, yet these assumptions form the foundation of its worldview.

By insisting on the primacy of natural causes, the sufficiency of evolutionary processes, and the exclusion of metaphysical explanations, evo-naturalism offers a godless religion that competes with theistic worldviews. It provides a comprehensive narrative for understanding existence but does so by excluding the possibility of divine purpose or intervention. Through its suppression of alternative views and its rigid defense of its core doctrines, evo-naturalism operates as a belief system that shapes how individuals and societies understand the world and their place within it. By presenting itself as the sole rational and scientific explanation of reality, evo-naturalism functions not only as a framework for scientific inquiry but as a totalizing worldview that leaves little room for competing interpretations of life's origins, purpose, and meaning.

Evo-Naturalism as a Competing Worldview

In many ways, evo-naturalism directly competes with traditional religious systems for explanatory power over the most fundamental questions of existence. Where religions like Christianity, Islam, or Judaism posit a creator who imparts meaning, moral law, and purpose to human life, evo-naturalism offers a starkly different narrative: one where everything is reduced to material processes and human existence is simply the result of random, unguided forces. In this view, there is no higher purpose or destiny; humanity is merely a byproduct of natural selection, existing for no reason beyond survival and reproduction.

This clash between evo-naturalism and theism is not just an intellectual one; it shapes how people see themselves, the world, and their responsibilities toward others. Evo-naturalism's reductionist approach strips human life of intrinsic value, moral accountability, and spiritual significance, instead offering an entirely mechanistic and deterministic outlook. By defining human beings as nothing more than complex biological machines, evo-naturalism effectively negates any objective basis for morality or ethics outside of survival advantages shaped by evolution.

In this sense, evo-naturalism operates as a worldview that competes with theistic traditions on every front, from ethics to cosmology. Where traditional religions propose divine justice, eternal life, and spiritual purpose, evo-naturalism offers only the cold finality of death, with no prospect of a reality beyond the material world.

The Suppression of Spiritual and Theistic Explanations

As evo-naturalism cements its position as the dominant framework within many academic and scientific institutions, it systematically suppresses spiritual and theistic explanations. While proponents of evo-naturalism claim their worldview is based purely on evidence and rationality, the exclusion of metaphysical and theistic perspectives from serious consideration is often ideological rather than empirical. Metaphysical questions—such as the nature of consciousness, the origins of morality, or the existence of a transcendent purpose—are dismissed as irrelevant or unscientific, despite their centrality to the human experience.

Educational institutions, media, and public discourse often reinforce this ideological gatekeeping. Students are taught evolutionary theory and naturalism as unassailable truths, with alternative views being relegated to the margins as mere "myths" or "superstitions." This institutional suppression ensures that evo-naturalism is presented as the only valid perspective, reinforcing the idea that any belief in the divine or supernatural is fundamentally incompatible with reason or scientific inquiry.

Moreover, spiritual and theistic perspectives that attempt to engage with scientific discourse—such as intelligent design—are often met with derision or dismissal, rather than critical examination. This creates a monolithic intellectual environment where only naturalistic explanations are deemed credible, effectively silencing those who propose alternative views.

A Framework Built on Unverifiable Assumptions

Despite its claims to empirical rigor, evo-naturalism is built upon a series of unverifiable assumptions that mirror the kinds of faith-based tenets seen in traditional religious systems. The acceptance of deep time, the inevitability of evolution producing complex life, and the belief that human consciousness and morality are merely byproducts of evolutionary processes are all theoretical constructs that cannot be directly tested or observed. These assumptions, though central to the evo-naturalistic worldview, require a level of faith similar to that which religious believers place in divine revelation or the existence of a higher power.

For instance, the belief that macroevolution (the large-scale transformations required to produce entirely new species) occurred over billions of years is based on inferences drawn from fossil records and genetic data, but it cannot be directly observed or repeated in laboratory conditions. Likewise, the assumption that human consciousness arose purely from natural selection and physical processes is an unverifiable claim that requires faith in the sufficiency of material explanations.

In this way, evo-naturalism's faith in natural processes to explain all aspects of life mirrors the faith that religious adherents place in supernatural causes. The core difference is that evo-naturalism deliberately excludes the possibility of divine action, even though its own explanatory power relies on assumptions that are beyond the reach of empirical testing.

Conclusion: Evo-Naturalism as a Secular Faith

In its totalizing scope and exclusion of alternative views, evo-naturalism functions as a godless religion. It provides its adherents with a comprehensive framework for understanding the world, grounded in evolutionary theory and naturalistic assumptions, but it does so by actively dismissing and suppressing the possibility of the divine or the supernatural. This worldview, while claiming to be based on evidence and reason, requires acceptance of unverifiable assumptions about the nature of reality, human existence, and the universe.

Like traditional religions, evo-naturalism offers its own set of doctrines—such as the primacy of natural causes, the sufficiency of evolutionary mechanisms, and the rejection of spiritual dimensions to human life. These doctrines are treated as unquestionable truths, defended dogmatically, and reinforced through institutional and cultural means that suppress alternative viewpoints.

In its suppression of metaphysical explanations and its reliance on speculative assumptions, evo-naturalism operates as a secular belief system, offering a godless explanation for life's greatest questions while excluding other perspectives from serious consideration. As such, evo-naturalism is not simply a scientific theory but a holistic worldview that claims dominion over the intellectual and spiritual landscape of modern society. By functioning as both a scientific framework and a religious substitute, evo-naturalism stands as a godless religion that competes directly with theistic and spiritual worldviews for explanatory power and cultural dominance.

oddXian.com

ive heard this a lot and im genuinely concerned because this challenge kinda makes sense and i dont wanna lose my faith

Hi guys, I've been thinking about this topic for a while and am confused about God's stance in child sacrifice. Obviously in the bible and from our own moral compass, we know that child sacrifice is (and was) frowned upon. Even in the Leviticus, the bible forbids offering their children to Moloch.

Why then did God command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? How does this make sense? An analogy for this would be a mother telling her children not to take heroin - but the mother one day decides to test her kids by telling them to take heroin.

I know that the ram/sheep that Moses found and that was the replacement of Isaac is supposed to be an analogy for Jesus, but I still cannot wrap my head around the command that God issued Abraham.

Would appreciate your help on this!

In college some 40 years ago, I read both volumes of Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

I was thinking about reading the books again but I'm just wondering how these volumes have stood the test of time. Have they held up to criticism? Is there better scholarship now?

I'm not saying I had a particular issue with these books. I'm just curious if I should invest my money and time in them again?

Introduction

As both a technology strategist and ordained minister with a strong foundation in Reformed theology, I've long been drawn to the challenge of creating a worldview that can seamlessly connect Christian doctrine, philosophical depth, and the rapid growth of modern science and technology. This quest has led to the development of what I call "Theoreddism"—a framework that unites Reformed theology, Christian Platonism, and contemporary science in a cohesive model.

At its heart, Theoreddism proposes that the universe operates like a system under God's direction, where His ultimate outcomes are assured. However, the details of reality unfold dynamically in a process I call "procedural actualization." This idea supports the notion of progressive revelation—God's truth revealed through Scripture, nature, and human advancement, all within the scope of divine sovereignty.

The term "Theoreddism" comes from the Greek word "Theos" (God) and the Latin "reddere" (to render or give back), emphasizing the belief that God is actively engaged in rendering reality in line with His purposes. This concept acts as a bridge between traditional theology and modern ideas from fields like computer science and information theory.

Theological and Philosophical Foundations

Theoreddism is rooted in Reformed theology, especially its emphasis on divine sovereignty and grace. However, it extends these ideas by suggesting that while God's ultimate plans are set, the fine details of reality aren't fixed beforehand but unfold dynamically according to His will. This balance respects both God's omniscience and the way events unfold over time.

The framework also draws heavily from Christian Platonism, affirming that abstract realities—such as numbers, logical principles, and mathematical truths—exist independently of human minds as reflections of God's rational nature. This provides a way to understand the deep mathematical structure of the physical world as a direct expression of God's intellect.

At the same time, Theoreddism holds a high view of Scripture as the ultimate source of truth, but it also recognizes nature and human progress as significant, though secondary, avenues for divine revelation. This fits well with the Reformed principle of Semper Reformanda ("always reforming"), allowing our understanding of theological truths to grow as we discover more about God's creation.

Procedural Actualization and Progressive Revelation

A key concept in Theoreddism is "procedural actualization"—the idea that God dynamically renders reality much like how complex environments are generated in real-time in computer graphics or video games. This draws an analogy to divine providence, where God sets the foundational rules of nature but allows the specific details to unfold within His broader plan.

In my work as a technology strategist, I've seen how procedural generation can create vast digital worlds with endless variety, all while following a consistent set of rules. In the same way, Theoreddism suggests that while God establishes the fundamental laws of nature, specific events and details are rendered dynamically in accordance with His ultimate purpose.

This model preserves God's control over outcomes while explaining human free will and the contingencies of history. It also parallels my strategic planning experience, where overall goals are set, but flexibility is allowed in response to changing circumstances.

Theoreddism also stresses progressive revelation—the idea that God's truth is revealed gradually through Scripture, nature, and historical events. This parallels how technological progress deepens our understanding of the universe, offering fresh insights into God's wisdom. For example, understanding DNA's role in genetics has enhanced our appreciation of the complexity and beauty of God's design in living organisms.

Temporal Asymmetry and Fine-Tuning

Theoreddism also addresses questions about the age of the universe through the concept of "temporal asymmetry," which suggests that time may have moved at different rates during key moments in history—such as the Creation week or the Flood.

An analogy from cloud computing helps clarify this idea: sometimes, more processing power is allocated to specific tasks, speeding them up relative to others. Similarly, Theoreddism proposes that during Creation, billions of years of cosmic history could have been rendered in a few days from an Earth-centric viewpoint.

This framework also offers a theistic interpretation of the universe's fine-tuning. Rather than relying on the multiverse or chance, Theoreddism sees the precise calibration of physical constants as evidence of God's intentional design, created to support life and allow for the development of beings who could recognize and worship Him.

Scientific Insights and Theological Implications

Theoreddism integrates modern scientific insights into its theological framework. For instance, quantum entanglement—a phenomenon where particles remain connected across vast distances—provides a model for understanding God's omniscience and His intimate knowledge of all events.

Similarly, developments in artificial intelligence offer fresh ways to think about God's foreknowledge and human free will. Just as AI can predict behavior without determining it, we can understand how God's perfect foreknowledge operates without removing genuine human freedom.

Theoreddism also takes cues from information theory and digital physics. The idea that information is fundamental to reality resonates with the biblical concept of God creating through His word. The physical universe, then, can be seen as divine "software" running on the "logic" of God in Christ.

Ethical and Practical Implications

Theoreddism's emphasis on dynamic interaction between God and creation has important ethical implications. It encourages active human participation in unfolding God's purposes, echoing the Reformed idea of vocation as a way to glorify God through work.

In terms of technology ethics, Theoreddism sees human creativity and innovation as participation in God's ongoing creative work. It promotes responsible technological development as a way to better understand and care for God's creation.

For apologetics, Theoreddism provides a robust framework for engaging with science without compromising theological truths. It allows believers to affirm both Scripture and scientific inquiry, recognizing both as ways in which God reveals Himself.

Conclusion

Theoreddism aims to synthesize Reformed theology, Christian philosophy, and modern science into a unified worldview. By incorporating ideas from computer science, information theory, and physics, it provides a vision of divine providence that is faithful to the Bible and intellectually engaged with contemporary thought.

As we continue to explore the frontiers of science and technology, frameworks like Theoreddism can help believers maintain a strong Christian witness while embracing the insights that human discovery offers. It invites us to see theology, philosophy, and science as unified pursuits of understanding the God who has revealed Himself in Scripture, nature, and most fully in Jesus Christ.

In the spirit of Semper Reformanda, Theoreddism is open to refinement as our understanding of both divine revelation and the natural world grows. It offers a path forward for those seeking to integrate faith and reason, affirming the authority of Scripture while being open to the wonders that scientific progress uncovers.

oddXian.com

I recently had a small debate with a materialist/naturalist about coherent explanations for the universe and evolution. I attempted to use a contingency argument and argued that the Big Bang and evolution are facts but not necessarily true, and then I went on to explain the philosophical terminology of necessity and contingency.

Here was my argument: You can make a coherent argument against the Big Bang (ie: an eternal universe) but you cannot make a coherent argument against Descartes’ argument for existence because it requires thought to prove existence. You can’t use thought to disprove your own existence (according to Descartes), and thus makes the explanation incoherent and paradoxal.

The materialist just wasn’t understanding this argument. He thought that arguments against the Big Bang are incoherent because they go against all of the evidence we have for the Big Bang. I tried to explain that you can make arguments against the Big Bang that aren’t paradoxal, but you can’t make arguments against Descartes’ argument for existence that aren’t paradoxal.

I think he wasn’t understanding because his mindset was science and materialism and mine was philosophy, but I said this explicitly and he still didn’t catch on. I’m probably just bad at explaining philosophical arguments in an online debate.

Hopefully this post makes sense.

So today i had this argument with my teacher about why christians wouldn't eat pork. The guy brought up something along the lines "so that they could befriande the romans and spred the faith". Is this true? If I remember correctly only messianic jews should follow these food laws. What more can you adderad to this? Why do we not eat pork?

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/did-jesus-exist/

It’s long but let me know what your think

I stated intelligent and purposeful design is the reason the Bible does not support evolution. A rebuttal was that a tube that you can breathe and eat through is dumb design. I’m actually serious it stumped me😂, I don’t know Gods purpose or reason, what he saw fit is true, not an argument to an atheist though.

I was recently scrolling through the atheist echo chamber that is the comment section of this video and I saw this one particular comment:

"My boyfriend of ten years did the worst thing possible, resulting in a little boy committing suicide, we broke up(with some broken bones on his part), and then the same thing later to his little brother. Looked for morality in the bible and found it wanting. David, Moses, were evil, but Abraham was the worst of all. Dictators are appointed by God, and any and all sins forgiven upon baptism. But don't worry, it's okay, because you get brainwashed into having God's perfect morality when you die. I hold a lot of love for Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, but the objective lack of morality is astonishing."

I was wonder what you guys think.

So for context :

I am a 16 Years Old Christian student who pursue Christ at 13. I read my Bible everyday and found out about apologetics last year. It looks very interesting and watched many debates and explanation. I also help some school friends answering some questions and there is a Christian Fellowship Rally that gives an option to learn Apologetics as I am interested.

I am studying in Malaysia and these are my grades :
Subjects that I am good at : English, History and Malay Language, Moral

Subjects that I am bad at : Biology, Additional Mathematics and Physics

I may have an disadvantage when discussing about defense e.g. Creation vs Evolution, Alcohol, existance of God etc as I only passed Chemistry , but have advantage at historicity of the Bible, xyz is a sin or not,

What topics I need to know beforehand that is commonly discussed in Apologetics or answers I need to know for famous questions?

And what do you think about McClellan having blocked IP after a 3 part exchange?

Does this encourage anyone?

Does anyone else have any critique's of McClellan's critiques?

I have heard the argument of “the genocide in the Old Testament was hyperbolic” but I find that hard to buy when on two occasions God or his prophets take issue with NOT killing all of the inhabitants.

In Numbers 31, the Israelites attack Moab, and when they kill everyone except the women and children, verses 17-18 have Moses telling them to “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

This isn’t just genocide, but child murder, not to mention that the “women children” culturally speaking were being given as plunder for sexual slavery.

In 1 Samuel 15, God speaking through Samuel tells King Saul “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

Saul does this, but takes King Agag alive and keeps some choice livestock to sacrifice to God. While the focus of this chapter is that Saul disobeyed the Lord, I also notice that God is angry that Saul didn’t completely slaughter the Amalekites. That’s not metaphoric or hyperbolic.

There is also the issue of King David’s punishment for the Bathsheba affair. We Christians will use this passage to show how God spared David, showing his grace, or how evil still has consequences even if God forgives. But I see something else.

There is always the conversation about the death of David’s son. How the Lord had to punish David with this because of his wickedness. I don’t understand this though.

Where is free will if the baby is being punished for the sins of his father? Why if God had to kill the child couldn’t he kill it in the womb? Or instantly? Why does he need to slowly kill it over a week? This quite honestly sounds worse than abortion to me, a pro life person. But I’ve heard it called right, merciful, and just.

The next parts of David’s punishment are talked about much less, and only through my personal reading did I find out about these.

In 2 Samuel 12:11-12, before God curses David’s son, he says to David, “Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.”

Following Nathan’s beautiful allegory, this shocked me. God is telling David that as punishment for his sin, God will cause or allow David’s wives to be kidnapped and publicly raped.

The first part of the curse too, “raising up evil” in David’s family is taught in Bible school and Church as regarding Absalom, but what helped to incite Absalom’s rebellion and was also evil in David’s family? The rape of Tamar.

Did God actually orchestrate the rape and desolation of Tamar, the subsequent deaths of Absalom, Amnon (who cares about him though), and all the other related deaths… just to punish David? How is that just? How are we free to choose anything then? How is that loving? How is that good or perfect?

I could go on but I’ve said a good bit here, but there’s also the discrepancy between God and Satan in 1 Chronicles 21 and 2 Samuel 24. I’ve heard it explained/harmonized as

“it was effectively all God but he MAY have used Satan to tell David. He did this because he wanted to judge Israel and used David (and possibly Satan) to do this, and so the means of causing sin was God, but the agents of causing said sin were still responsible for it.”

How does this make sense? So God can effectively cause someone to sin and it’s their fault? And then he can punish the person (or 70,000 unrelated people) for a sin he caused them to commit? How is that just? Righteous? Kind? Loving?

There is even more…

I don’t mean to be insulting but this hurts me. I dont understand how a God can be omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, loving, kind, just, holy, forgiving, unchanging, etc…. After reading all those stories. It’s like there’s two God images in my mind.

There’s the perfect loving but strict Father from my childhood, Jesus who loves me, all that. And there’s Yahweh from my Bible reading. The God I almost laugh at but can’t because he does things that disgust and terrify me, while claiming to be the same God as the one I grew up with. I don’t want to be an atheist and I don’t want to go to a different religion or become some kind of Christian Gnostic, but I don’t know how to accept these things.

My 'logical' and 'rational' mind screams against the idea of truth in faith.
Growing up in a time where information is accessible everywhere, you get confronted with the philosophy that religion is a man-made invention to fill the evolutionary empty feeling of meaning in life. The need to live for something.

However this idea does not sit right with me.

"Logical", an atheist would say. "It's a rough confrontation with reality that's not conform with your humanly needs to live for something".

Or,
"It's because I've been raised with the bible in a Christian family" Which fills me with fear for the possible consequences if Christianity would be true, meaning I would go to hell if I lose faith.

Or,
"Afraid for an existential crisis" when accepting the terms of atheism knowing my life would have 0 meaning

Even though these points might sound fair to explain the feeling of distress, there is still something inside of me wanting to know that God exists. Maybe it's all because of fear, but my mind gasps for a perfect morally higher power on which foundation I can live on.

I've had my fair struggles in faith, questions that probably won't ever be answered. People I love who are sick that are devoted to God but still don't experience rest.

My question to those is, how could one find peace among these questions, peace with a continuously rational answer-seeking mind, peace with the existence of God.
How did you do it?