The concept of God/god/gods exists in all cultures around the world with drastically varying definitions. The concept could not exist without the ability to attribute meaning to something thus language is the common denominator across the diverging definitions. Just because monotheism came up with a grand omnipotent omniscient god as an answer to creation doesn't supersede the reality language first defines self which than can create meaning in the abstract and in concrete reality allowing the idea of god/gods to exist. It is the creator's creator...

Okay, I got put in time out for a week because I was too snarky about the Hinduism thing. Fair enough, I was and I will be nicer this time. In the last week, after much introspection, I've decided to give up engaging snark. So I'll just limit my responses to people that have something meaningful to say about the points I've made below. So without further ado, here's another idea that may be easier for us to engage with.

From the outside, "Atheism is just lack of belief" seems like the way atheists typically attempt to avoid scrutiny. However, "just lack of belief" is an untenable position fraught with fallacious reasoning, hidden presuppositions, and smuggled metaphysical commitments. Because I know every atheist on Reddit is going to say I didn't prove my point, know that below are just the highlights. I can't write a doctoral thesis in a Reddit post. However, I would love people to challenge what I said so that we can fully develop this idea. I actually think holding to this "just lack of belief" definition is a hindrance to further conversation.

1. Circular Reasoning–By framing atheism as a position that "doesn't make claims," it automatically avoids any need for justification or evidence. The circularity arises because this non-claim status is not argued for but is instead embedded directly into the definition, creating a closed loop: atheism doesn’t make claims because it’s defined as a lack of belief, and it lacks belief because that’s how atheism is defined.

2. Self-Refuting Neutrality: The statement “atheism is just a lack of belief” can be self-refuting because it implies atheism is a neutral, passive stance, while actively denying or requiring proof of a theistic worldview. True neutrality would require an atheist to withhold any judgment about evidence for God, meaning they couldn't claim there's no evidence for God's existence without abandoning their neutral stance. As soon as they say, “There’s no evidence for God,” they’re no longer in a neutral, passive position; they’ve made a judgment about the nature of evidence and, by implication, reality. This claim assumes standards about what counts as “evidence” and implies a worldview—often empiricist—where only certain types of empirical evidence are deemed valid. In doing so, they step out of the "lack of belief" position and into an active stance that carries assumptions about truth, reality, and the criteria for belief. In other words, if your say "Atheism is just lack of belief. Full stop." I expect you to full stop, and stop talking. Lol

3. Position of Skepticism: By claiming atheism is just a “lack of belief,” atheists try to appear as merely withholding judgment. However, this is self-defeating because the lack of belief stance still operates on underlying beliefs or assumptions about evidence, truth, and what’s “believable", even if they aren't stated. For instance, a true lack of belief in anything (such as the existence of God) would leave the person unable to make truth claims about reality’s nature or the burden of proof itself. It implies skepticism while covertly holding onto a framework (such as empiricism or naturalism) that needs to be justified.

4. Metaphysical Commitment: Saying “atheism is just a lack of belief” seems like a neutral position but actually implies a hidden metaphysical commitment. By framing atheism as “lacking belief,” it implies that theism needs to meet a burden of proof, while atheism does not. However, this “lack of belief” stance still assumes something about the nature of reality—specifically, that without convincing evidence, it’s reasonable to assume God doesn’t exist. This is a metaphysical assumption, implying a certain view of evidence and what counts as knowledge about existence.  

Keep in mind, I say this because I really think this idea is a roadblock to understanding between religious people and atheists. I feel like if we can remove this roadblock, address our presuppositions and metaphysical commitments, we could actually find common ground to move the conversation forward.

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge that talks about the nature, sources, and limits of knowledge. It deals with questions like: What is knowledge? How do we know what we know? What are the sources of knowledge—for example, perception, reason, memory, testimony? What justifies our beliefs, and in what circumstances can we be said to truly "know" anything? Epistemology is the study of the distinction between knowledge, belief, and opinion—how we attain certainty or skepticism about the things that we know. For the sake of this argument, I'll be defining knowledge as "justified true belief".

Autonomous epistemology is the idea of human knowledge and reasoning independent of any divine or other external authority, grounded in human reason, experience, and evidence. It assumes man is capable of coming to truth apart from the insight of divine revelation and any theology. Theonomous epistemology, on the other hand, holds the belief that true knowledge has in its root and depends upon God's revelation, which in reverse would claim that without divine insight, the human understanding incapacitates. God's nature and will here simply form the foundation on how we can have any true knowledge and justification of those things. It really disallows the thought of humans being utterly self-sufficient in their search for knowledge.

The crux of TAG is that autonomous epistemology shoots itself in the foot and tries to establish knowledge based on itself, without appealing for anything else. At this point, however, it faces a problem in terms of justification. The two papers "The Problem of the Justification of a Theory of Knowledge" critically look into this issue, and from their insight, one can frame an argument against the feasibility of autonomous epistemology.

Syllogism

p1. God is the necessary precondition for the possibility of knowledge.

p2. Knowledge is possible.

C. God exists.

The bulk of the rest of this post will be defending premise one by attacking autonomous epistemology through pointing out the fact all autonomous epistemic systems will inevitably participate in viscous circularity, as well as arguing that theonomous epistemic systems are the only way to avoid that problem.

Self-Referential Incoherence

• A point that is usually considered a problem is the issue of self-referential incoherence. In a word, autonomous epistemology says the explanation of knowledge may be given wholly within the system itself, but once we ask how we know that this system is valid or reliable, then such an answer must be from outside the system if we are to avoid circularity. For example, if we assume that a theory of knowledge justifies itself in an internal fashion, we then have the question, for what reason or system it uses is this self-justification criterion or system in any way trustable. And if we say, "because the system says so," then we once again fall into vicious circularity—justifying the system by the system. In other words, everything that is an autonomous system of knowledge needs some sort of external validation as proof to be considered reliable, but that already negates the premise of it being autonomous. Therefore, the theory becomes self-defeating because it cannot justify its own truth claims without appealing to something other than itself.

Epistemic circularity

• Epistemic circularity is closely related to the problem of self-referential incoherence is that of epistemic circularity. Let us suppose that we create an autonomous epistemology issuing from some internal method or set of criteria—say, coherence, consistency, or internal experience. To avoid external input, the process of justification can refer only to elements already within the system. But that turns out being epistemic circularity: a sort of vicious circle in which some belief is justified by another, yet that belief is justified in turn by the belief in question, or something very close to it. It will be seen, for instance, that internal coherence could only be a ground for knowledge when the notion of coherence is first itself legitimized. Where can we presume coherence to be a sufficient standard of truth? An appeal to coherence must again be justified by another measure, which in turn either brings us back to coherence—circularity—or to an external justification that undermines autonomy. There thus seems no way in which autonomous epistemology can avoid devolving either into circularity or into an appeal to something other than itself. Example: Subject A: “I trust reason because it leads me to truth." Subject B: “But why do you trust that reason leads to truth?” Subject A “Because reason tells me so.”

Infinite Regress

• The infinite regress problem is perhaps the most direct issue posed to autonomous epistemology. Commonly enough, autonomous epistemologies do try to give a justification of knowledge by appealing to self-contained criteria only—namely, internal justification. Any attempt at justifying a belief in some system of beliefs will always face the justifying belief itself needing further justification, and so on ad infinitum. Such a problem arises in this system in that, logically speaking, there can be no basic belief therein that justifies itself independently of an appeal to something outside of the closed system. In order to get around this, many would argue that there needs to be some sort of "basic" beliefs, which are self-justifying. But if those beliefs are, in fact, self-justifying, then it is no longer really an autonomous system because the foundational principles are independent of the system of internal justification. In short, autonomous epistemology could not, in fact, be possible since a genuinely self-contained justification process would, in reality, never stop.

This cyclical argument doesn't resolve the deeper issue of how reason itself is justified outside of the framework in which it operates. The Requirement of External Reference (Reality or Other Minds) The deeper problem, though, is that epistemology, by its very nature, seeks to understand knowledge of the external world—or at least objective truth. Knowledge—even if one constructs some sort of dearly elaborate internal framework—must be knowledge about something—whether that's an external reality, abstract objects, or even subjective experiences. For any verification or validation from a knowledge claim, there has to be some external referent against which the knowledge claim is compared. In the case of scientific knowledge, for example, a hypothesis is tested against an external world of empirical data. Similarly, in the case of mathematical knowledge, propositions are tested against logical systems or frameworks that exist independently of any particular personal belief system. Likewise, if autonomous epistemology does indeed claim to represent knowledge, then it too will have to make reference to an external world or reality that exists independently of the coherence of the system purely internally. Even purely subjective systems of knowledge—e.g., introspective or phenomenological approaches—depend upon unexamined presuppositions to the effect that the data of subjective experience report some underlying reality—whether mental, psychological, or otherwise. That is to say, in order for there even to be a system of knowledge, there must be some point of reference outside of the system in question—which can take the form either of external reality, other minds, or an idealized criterion of reality... like God.

In theonomous epistemology, all knowledge is based upon the self-revelation of God—the revelation that comes through two primary means:

Special Revelation

• This is done in Scripture, whereby God Himself explains His will, nature, and truths regarding reality. The Scripture is a sure source of knowledge where humans have those kinds of insights into what cannot be attained by humans through reason alone. For instance, the nature of moral truths, the existence of God, and the purpose of human life are made explicit from these biblical texts.

General Revelation

• This is such revelation that addresses knowledge of God through nature and the moral order imbedded in the creation itself. An example is the Apostle Paul, in Romans 1:20, highlighting that God's invisible attributes may be realized visibly through creation and, as such, provide a broad base from which a relationship with God may be known to exist and, to some degree, His nature grasped. This, therefore, is a common universal revelation that unites all humanity at the same level, even for those who may not have access to special revelations. The main characteristic of divine revelation is that it is self-authenticating. Being the ultimate source of truth, God does not need to vindicate His revelations from an external standard. On the contrary, His nature, which is perfect, omniscient, and immutable, is supposed to be the final standard for anything existing under the aspect of truth. In other words, this means that the truth of God's revelation is intrinsically valid, needing no support from human reason or experience. It is because of this grounding in the divine that epistemology that is theonomous does provide a sure basis for knowledge—without wavering, neither is it grounded in the fallible human perspective—which contrasts with autonomous epistemology where knowledge is more often cloaked in skepticism since it relies entirely on human reason.

Resolution of Infinite Regress

• The problem of infinite regress arises in epistemology when every justification requires further justification, which leads to an endless chain of support without something foundational to stop it. This is especially problematic for autonomous systems—part of whose selling points are that knowledge is justified through human reason or internal coherence alone. However, in theonomous epistemology, infinite regress is terminated by the concept of divine revelation providing an ultimate starting point. Here's how this works.

God as the Necessary Being

• God, primarily, is understood to be a "necessary" being who has self-existence and who has no need to depend on any factor independent of His being in order to exist or to know either. Self-existence, to this end, provides a clear-cut basis upon which a claim to knowledge may be premised. Given that God does not rely on external verification with respect to His existence and thought, His revelation can constitute the highest degree of justification for all human knowledge. The truths revealed by God are not contingent on human reasoning but presented as authoritative and axiomatic. Just like axioms in mathematics, where axioms are basic truths from which theorems are built, divine revelation exists as a foundational truth upon which all other ways of knowledge are built. For instance, the belief in the existence of God, the reality of moral absolutes, and the truth of historical events described in Scripture can be taken as foundational without further justification.

Stopping the Regress:

• Since divine revelation constitutes sure and certain knowledge, the regress in the chain of justification is not infinite. Knowledge claims can be based on the authoritative utterances of God; the regress can be stopped. In lieu of an infinite search for justification, theonomous epistemology provides a clear structure in which knowledge terminates in the revelation provided by a sure and omniscient deity.

Self-referential Incoherence Avoidance

• Self-referential incoherence obtains when a system attempts to validate its own criterion of truth without appealing to an external standard and hence falls into circularity. Autonomous epistemologies are very often the victim of this, given their reliance on internal coherence, which is an easy target for doubt and skepticism. Theonomous epistemology avoids this problem through the following:

The External Authority of God

• The pre-understanding that underlies theonomous epistemology is that knowledge depends upon God's revelation. Because God is outside human thought and experience, His authority provides an objective criterion of truth not subject to human fallibility. Any believer who appeals to divine revelation as justifying the truth of a statement appeals to an authority transcending the individual points of view and subjective distortions.

Non-circular Justification

• This would be such knowledge that does not depend on the truth itself to be considered as valid. Instead, this is such knowledge which is justified in the nature of God who cannot lie because of His character and nature. For example, when Christians hold that moral truths are valid since they are based on God's nature, this is not an example of circular reasoning. Alternatively, what is maintained is that the moral truths get their validity from an outside unchanging source.

Inner Coherence Internally and Externally Through Diverse Contexts

• Theonomous epistemology possesses internal coherence insofar as it appeals to an external standard. The moral law revealed through Scripture, for instance, can be shown to be universally applied rather than incoherent within a human system. Universality is based on God's nature, which is coherent in and through both time and culture.

Recognition of Human Limitations

• Theonomy does also recognize human limitations with regard to reason and experience. As much as man can try to understand and interpret the revelation of God, there is every tendency that he is still finite and fallible. This recognition perhaps gives another avenue through which the trap of self-referential incoherence can be shunned since, under this perspective, truth does not have to be established via relying exclusively on human reason, but divine insight and authority are recognized as necessary.

Epistemic Externalism via God's Revelation

• While autonomous epistemology tends to blot out the input of external factors into knowledge, theonomous epistemology embraces the need for an external, authoritative source. That position holds that human cognition and reasoning are not independent processes but intertwined with the divine. The knowledge we come to possess is not solely the product of internal processes but rather informed and guided by God's revelation. That allows for a certain kind of epistemic externalism. Knowledge is framed within the understanding of God's truth, while human understanding is then thought to be a response to divine revelation rather than an autonomous activity. This preserves the epistemology from subjectivism and/or contingency, placing it instead within the resources of an objective grounding that goes beyond human fallibility.

In a nutshell, theonomous epistemology provides an elucidation of the autonomous type through the rooting of knowledge in divine revelation that clearly resolves the problems of infinite regress, self-referential incoherence, and circularity. By appealing to them as the ultimate sources of truth, theonomous epistemology asserts that all human knowledge is dependent upon the divine authority. The system has the effect of legitimizing the knowledge and keeping it integrated and unified.

The defense of the second premise will be way shorter than the first.

The denial of knowledge is self-falsifying because the very act of denying it requires knowledge. To claim that "knowledge doesn't exist" is to assert a proposition that you believe to be true, which implies that you know it to be true. This immediately undermines the denial, as it assumes the existence of knowledge to argue against knowledge. In other words, if you assert that no one can know anything, you are contradicting yourself, as you would have to know that no one can know. Therefore, the denial of knowledge is self-defeating and logically impossible.

The title is essentially want I ask but I feel as a slightly more detailed and background filled one is mandotory. So I wish for you to try in change my faith in God (Roman Catholic) by whatever means necessary be it logical moral or anything you can conceive! Just remember sight sources and be civil.

[edit: turns out there's a lot wrong]

beliefs like being an atheist, a Christian, or agnostic don't get you anywhere closer to truth and only stand to restrict thinking.

I recently came across the idea that the only thing we can truly know is that we perceive, and everything else is impossible to prove since reality could be simulation, illusion, objective truth, etc... That's the premise of this post.

Some relevant backstory: raised non denominational Christian and was unsatisfied, found atheism after exposure to religious ignorance/cruelty(a tale as old as time), was still unsatisfied, then found agnosticism which sounded good to me and I stopped caring.

That was like 5 years ago, but recently I've been reading religious/spiritual books. Mostly because it's interesting but I also think a part of me is hoping I missed something important in the realm of religion. Anyways I'm searching around and several of these texts say belief is the main inhibitor of knowledge and growth; that we should use knowledge to navigate our experience yet never trust it and remain open to possibilities. I thought that was profound because I always see arguments directed at different thought systems but never at belief as a concept. Your experience may differ though. And as someone who once treated atheism like a religion(believed it lol), this hit pretty hard.

A little while later I was looking up famous scientist's religious beliefs and found Einstein identified as a "religious non-believer". The first words that came to my mind were "dude found the cheat code". That's the best of both worlds right there. It's open to different ideas with no identity attached. Plus it's Einstein. The time he thought he failed he got proven right later. that's no part of my argument btw just love Albert.

I think this is a good way to think about what I'm saying:

There is a god - belief there is no god - belief we don't know - seems impartial at first but at second glance believes something is unknowable which is also a belief atheist leaning agnostic - closed off from anything unexplainable by science so still shaping your experience with belief

My point is that whether or not any of these are "true" or "false" doesn't change the restrictions they place on your thinking.

If we find out we're wrong about something and we aren't attached, we don't care. However, if we feel like our identity is being threatened it hurts and we can fall into confirmation bias, anger, delusion, etc.... And that's what I think belief is

belief = information + identity (you don't need the identity part, just the information)

like how authoritarian regimes love the concept of heresy, thought crimes(just like 1984), etc... It only stands to restrict you.

labels aren't a bad thing obviously it's when you attribute a label to yourself.

I'm not saying live as if nothing is real or telling you to start reading religious texts I'm just saying we trust what we tell ourselourselves, so try to expand your scope. for all you know you're wearing a vr headset and all material world rules don't exist. don't live as if that's true but accept the possibility.

Restrictions in thought can retrict your life probably, so free yourself. get more out of this experience

i BELIEVE that's it. hehe

edit: i didn't know what i was talking about. categorically misunderstood what an atheist and a belief is. forgive my ignorance friends.

I’m aware this has come up before, but it looks like it’s been several years. Please help me understand how a true Atheist (not just agnostic) understands the origin of existence.

The “big bang” (or expansion) theory starts with either an infinitely dense ball of matter or something else, so I’ve never found that a compelling answer to the actual beginning of existence since it doesn’t really seem to be trying to answer that question.

I used to be a devout muslim, and when I was leaving my faith - one of the dilemmas I faced is the answer to the moral argument.

Now an agnostic atheist, I'm still unsure what's the best answer to this.

In essence, a theist (i.e. muslim) will argue that you can't criticize its moral issues (and there are too many), because as an atheist (and for some, naturalist) you are just a bunch of atoms that have no inherent value.

From their PoV, Islam's morality is objective (even though I don't see it as that), and as a person without objective morality, you can't define right or wrong.

What's the best argument against this?

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.

For anyone who would rather hear the concept first explained by an atheist rather then a theist se:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ5uE8kZbMw

11:25-12:29

Basically in summary the idea is that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a God. lf you were to se a man rise from the dead, if you were to se a burning bush speak or a sea part or a bolt of lightning from the heavens come down and scratch words into stone tablets on a mountainside on a fundamental level there would be no way to know if this was actually caused by a God and not some advanced alien technology decieving you.

lts a coherent critique and l find many atheists find it convincing leading them to say things like "l dont know what could convince me of a God's expistence" or even in some cases "nothing l can concieve of could convince me of the existence of a God." But the problem for me is that this critique seems to not only be aplicable to the epistemilogical uncertaintity of the existence of God but all existence broadly.

How do you know the world itself is not an advanced simulation?

How do you know when you experience anything it is the product of a material world around you that exists rather then some advanced technology currently decieving you?

And if the answer to these is "l cant know for certian but the world l experience is all l have to go on." then how is any God interacting in the world any different from any other phenomena you accept on similarly uncertian grounding?

lf the critique "it could be an advanced deceptive technology" applies to all reality and we accept the existence of reality despite this how then is "it could be an advanced deceptive technology" a coherent critique of devine manifestations???

Appericiate and look forward to reading all your answers.

(I'M NO LONGER ANSWERING COMMENTS HERE. I'VE ALREADY RECEIVED GREAT ANSWERS AND REACHED A CONCLUSION WHILE TALKING TO SOME PEOPLE HERE AND THINKING BY MYSELF)

My goal with my argument isn't saying "YHWH is the only possible explanation", but to present what's most likely and then try reasoning with you guys on what's more likely to be true. I'll try to organize my line of thinking with a few points.

1. There is no definitive evidence of anything coming into existence completely uncaused.

Do we have any kind of solid and definitive evidence of anything at all coming into existence without any cause? Honestly, the only thing close to that I've found are virtual particles. Which, honestly, isn't that much for us to work with. Again, this isn't my field of expertise. But this is my key-point: The chances of something in the physical world to have a cause is simply much higher than not to.

2. The evidences we have indicate the universe isn't collapsing itself and expanding again in existence.

The evidences point against the Big Crunch theory. Is it impossible? I don't know. But again, my key-point is: The chances of the universe being in a process of collapsing into a singularity and expanding in an infinite cycle are low, according to the evidence we have available. Thus, less likely.

3. There is no solid evidence for the existence of eternal and infinite energy. (Debunked...it seems)

Note: People have shown me that actually energy can neither be created or destroyed, but transformed. But now another problem arises; Then wouldn't we have an infinite regression of energy transforming into another kind or energy? If that's the case, how could ever be a "now"?

4. Summary:

The chances of an universe starting in some premordial form from the absolute nothing are extremely low. (I know, with enough "time", taking the virtual particle studies into consideration, maybe it could happen?), the evidence for an infinite process of contraction and expansion is extremely low, and how could there be the present moment with an infinite regression of energy transformation?

5. An unlogical creator then isn't as unreasonable as many Atheists claim [Not all Atheists]

If that's the case, why would the existence of a being outside of these current limitations be so unlikely? If we're talking about thinking philosophically, wouldn't the existence of something\someone outside of these limitations (some creator) be the least unlogical argument, looking at the evidence available for us?

6. Something must have had no cause, something must have had to be there "eternally"?

IF we base our educated guess on all the evidences we have about all proven facts about the universe, something had to be "outside" of what we define as "logical", something has had to have no source. Then a\many creator(s) that are not based on logic would be not be as impossible as Atheists say. Wouldn't this be a pretty reasonable educated philosophical position, at least?

So, that's it. My goal with this post wasn't try to offer an argument for a personal god or any sort. But to at least try to show that maybe some of us should be less dismissive with the existence of a creator not based on what we define as common sense and logic. Because at some point, things did not "make sense". No matter how logical we try to be, at some point we'd have to throw what we know as "logic" out the window, this is my opinion.

So, sometimes I wonder if the neutral position shouldn't be a belief in some kind of creator/first causer that's not limited by any kind of energy and has no cause.

Also, I'm an Atheist, but sometimes I do wonder if my position in not believing in any kind of creator isn't against the very own logic and evidences I claim to follow.

Hi all,

For brief background I'm an agnostic, somewhere between irreligious pantheist and atheist.

Anyways, out of all the arguments for Christianity I have heard, faith healings is one of the more interesting ones. While there are a few potential rational explanations, there are far too many alleged instances of faith healing to properly keep track of, and they can be quite tricky to explain with such means depending on what they consist of.

For example, if there is a verified case of someone just growing back an entire leg within seconds, that cannot really be explained without miracles.

So, when learning of a 20s evangelist faith healer named Aimee McPherson from a discussion with a Christian, it has just been weird to look through, and I guess I kinda just want to hear others' thoughts.

In a nutshell, she apparently healed thousands of people in miraculous ways, and many skeptics were persuaded. Indeed, allegedly the American Medical Association investigated, and found it extraordinary, though I couldn't really find anything directly from them, and apparently it is in books that have been written on her.

I do not particularly feel like buying books to maybe not even get to what I am looking for, so anyways I guess I'm just curious if any other atheists / agnostics have heard of this individual, and what they think of her alleged faith healings.

I get this post might not be too clear, but I don't know entirely what to make of this individual, perhaps because she was from the 20s so you cannot see her responses to situations now which might help make it clearer, idk.

(Edit: I have realised how using the words 'case study' might be a bit misleading, considering this post is a bit all over the place. I put it there to basically just mean example).

Thanks

I refuse to acknowledge a sneeze with “bless you” even though my entire family is religious, and my in-laws are semi religious. (Say they are but don’t go to church type.) I hate when it slips out due to prior habit. Not fond of the word “Gesundheit”. I feel like I pronounce it wrong and have a brief feeling of insecurity every time I say it. My wife thinks it’s rude to not acknowledge a sneeze. There’s also the need to also instill some manners in our children. My inside joke with my wife is a sarcastic “Don’t die.” What are typical options people use? Need something that won’t instill an eye roll from my kids when I remind them to do it! Lol

Basically, arguments that try to argue for theism either because supposedly alternative explanations are more faulty than theism, or that there's some type of analysis or evidence that leads to the conclusion that theism is true?

This is usually arguments against physicalism, or philosophical arguments for theism. Has anyone made some type of categorical responses to these types of arguments instead of the standard, "solid" arguments (i.e. argument from morality, teleological argument, etc.)?

1. The Expanding Universe (51:47):

Verse: "And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander."

---"We are [its] expander" describe the expansion of the universe, which is a central part of the Big Bang theory and modern cosmology. This concept was unknown in the 7th century, making this alignment particularly compelling for those who see it as foreknowledge.

2. Orbits and Celestial Bodies (21:33):

Verse: "It is He who created night and day, and the sun and the moon; each [celestial body] is swimming in an orbit."

----This verse suggest that the sun, moon, and possibly other celestial bodies follow set paths or orbits. We now know that the moon orbits the Earth, and the Earth and other planets orbit the sun. Additionally, the sun itself is moving within the Milky Way galaxy, which aligns with this concept of celestial bodies in continuous, ordered motion. Swimming is interesting When we think of "swimming," we picture movement through a medium, like water. In a similar way, celestial bodies are moving along the paths created by the “medium” of curved spacetime. They follow the curvature of spacetime as if they're "swimming" or "gliding" along gravitational pathways set by massive objects. The detection of gravitational waves(2015 I guess) makes it beautiful.

3. Embryology and Development(23:12-14)

Verse: “And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay. Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging. Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation.”

---The Quran describes several stages in human development: a sperm-drop, a “clinging clot,” a lump, and the development of bones and flesh. Modern embryology has shown that human development follows stages where cells initially form a small mass, then differentiate into tissues, with the formation of bones before flesh.

4. Mountains and Stability(78-:6-7)

Verse: “Have We not made the earth as a bed and the mountains as pegs?”

---This verse describes mountains as “pegs,” which is remarkably consistent with our understanding of mountain formation and tectonic activity. Mountains have deep roots that extend into the earth’s crust, stabilizing the land masses and playing a role in maintaining geological balance.

.5.The Protective Atmosphere(21:32) Verse: “And We made the sky a protected ceiling, but they, from its signs, are turning away.”

---The atmosphere shields us from harmful solar radiation, regulates temperature, and prevents meteors from impacting the surface by burning them up.

Do you accept That God exists now?

I'm banned by mods temporarily The sub clearly mentions to down vote the comment you don't like (even if it's true). It literally says this... Keep on commenting I will reply with another account

I was tweet sparing with an Xtian and he commented on the fact that we atheists shouldn’t take Jesus at his word that the second coming was near, 2000 is nothing to god. So since it’s best to use the bible literally I asked him the following:

Glad you asked, 2000 years is 1/3rd of the total time the earth has existed, according to the bible.
So when Jesus spoke the earth was 4k years old. 2k then represents 50% of all Time so yes, that seems like a lot.

The logic is OK, but it does not clearly express the scope what I want to say. 2000 is 1/2 of all time, from Jesus vantage. If Jesus had said, “I will return at a date equaling ½ of the age of the earth,” his followers might have balked at that.

I would appreciate a more help framing the concept here to make a more cogent reply some other time.

Thanks

A common theodicy from theists is that "free will" is necessary for genuine love, moral development, and meaningful choice. The argument goes that God allows evil because preventing it would somehow negate human free will, which is apparentlhy super essential for some sort of authentic relationships with God and genuine moral character.

But then... this seems to be in direct conflict with another commonly held belief among many Christians: that infants and young children who die automatically go to Heaven because they haven't reached the "age of accountability."

Doesn't this create a HUGE logical problem?

1. If children who die young automatically go to Heaven, then clearly free will is not actually necessary for salvation or a relationship with God. These "souls" will spend eternity in perfect communion with God without ever having exercised free will regarding their faith.

2. This means one of two things must be true:

   • Either free will isn't actually necessary for genuine love and relationship with God (undermining the whole "free will" theodicy)
   • Or the saved children in Heaven don't actually have genuine love or relationship with God (which is a whole other huge can of worms)

3. Even further... if God can and does override free will to save children, then the claim that "God must allow evil to preserve free will" becomes incoherent. Clearly God is willing to override free will in some cases for the greater good of ensuring salvation.

4. This creates an additional problem: If God is willing to override free will to save children, why wouldn't a benevolent deity simply apply this same mechanism to everyone? Why not have everyone die in infancy if that guarantees salvation? Or why not simply create all souls with the same state of grace that saved infants allegedly have?

5. The common response that "God wants us to freely choose Him" falls apart because:

   • God clearly doesn't require this for children
   • The "choice" anyways isn't really "free" in the first place if it's made under threat of eternal torment
   • The "choice" is made with incomplete information and understanding
   • Most people's religious beliefs are heavily influenced by where and when they were born (something that no one "freely" wills)

6. This completely undermines the moral framework of salvation through free choice:

   • If children can be saved without making any moral choices, then moral behavior clearly isn't necessary for salvation.
   • This also means that God CAN and DOES grant salvation without requiring moral decision-making.
   • If moral decision-making isn't necessary for children's salvation, why is it required for adults?
   • This creates some sort of arbitrary and cruel distinction where adults must navigate complex moral choices under threat of Hell, while children apparently get a free pass
   • It also means that God could grant everyone salvation regardless of their moral choices (as He does with children) but chooses not to
   • This makes the entire framework of moral "testing" through free will seem arbitrary and unnecessary (and why would an omniscient being need to "test" anyone or anything anyways)

7. The "salvation-through-moral-choice" model also has some pretty glaring issues when you consider:

   • Many adults have mental capacities or circumstances that limit their ability to make informed moral choices
   • The line between "child-like innocence" and "adult moral responsibility" is both fuzzy and culturally dependent
   • Some adults even have less capacity for moral reasoning than some children
   • If God can judge children's potential future choices (as some try to argue to get out of this), then why not just judge everyone this way (and just not create the potential people who "fail" this "judgment")?

I mean, you can't simultaneously claim that:

• Free will is for some reason SO essential that God must allow evil to preserve it
• God regularly overrides free will to save certain individuals
• Moral choices through free will are necessary for salvation
• Some people are saved without making any moral choices

Like, this pretty much forces defenders of the "free will" theodicy into some pretty questionable and uncomfortable positions:

• Deny that children automatically go to Heaven (yikes...)
• Admit that free will isn't actually necessary for salvation (undermining the "free will" theodicy and rendering it useless as an answer to the PoE)
• Claim that saved children...somehow exercised free will despite never reaching the age of reason (which is nonsensical as fuck)
• Accept that the free will defense is fundamentally flawed (uncomfortable, maybe, but not nearly as questionable)
• Acknowledge that God's requirement of moral choice for salvation is arbitrary and unnecessary (which means we can throw "omnibenevolence" out the window

How can "free will" possibly serve as an anywhere coherent response to the Problem of Evil when it contains this massive, fundamental contradiction at its very core?

We're constantly being asked to accept:

• That free will is so absolutely essential that God cannot intervene to prevent even the most horrific evils (genocide, torture, child abuse, you name it) without undermining it

• That free will is so crucial to salvation that adults must make the right moral choices or face eternal damnation

• That free will is so fundamental to having a genuine relationship with God that He cannot reveal Himself more clearly without compromising it (even though He consistently did so in the Bible)

• Yet simultaneously, that same God regularly bypasses free will entirely to grant automatic salvation to children

• And that these saved souls will spend eternity in perfect communion with God despite never having exercised this supposedly essential free will

This is a bit like some sort of theological equivalent of claiming that it's absolutely impossible to build a house without a foundation because foundations are essential to all buildings... while pointing to a house you built without a foundation and claiming it's your best work.

If the free will defense truly has ANY merit, people using it need to explain:

1. Why is free will absolutely, completely, extremely, super duper, no backsies inviolable when it comes to preventing evil, but then also somehow completely disposable when it comes to saving children?

2. How can free will be "necessary" for "genuine love and relationship with God" when millions of saved souls in Heaven never exercised it?

3. Why does God choose to override free will to save some but not others?

4. How can the requirement of free-willed moral choice be anything but arbitrary when God regularly ignores it?

Until someone can answer these in a logically consistent way, the "free will" defense appears to be fundamentally broken at its very foundation. It's not just that it has some minor issues or edge cases, it contains an inherent contradiction that undermines its entire logical framework.

This leaves us with one conclusion: Either the free will defense to the Problem of Evil must be abandoned entirely, or centuries of religious tradition regarding the salvation of children must be reversed. There doesn't seem to be any logically coherent way to maintain both positions simultaneously.

Seriously, the whole thing doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny.

Really, I've yet to see a coherent resolution to this contradiction that doesn't require abandoning either:

1. The belief that children automatically go to Heaven

2. The free will defense to the problem of evil

3. The notion that "free willed" moral choices are necessary for salvation

4. Basic logical consistency

Thoughts?

Am I somehow missing somehthing here?

Holm Tetens, a german philosopher proposed in a more recent book, that theism is at least as rational as naturalism (which he defines as a metaphysical Woldview, that proposes every phenomenon is explained with recourse on natural laws, without 1. teleological claims and 2. exceptions (=wonders)).

In his analysis naturalism (still) lacks an explanation for the emergence of self-conscious and reflective I-Subjects, which is similar to the mind-body-problem but stresses that not only the emergence of self consciousness and reflection are to discuss but also the First-Person-Perspective of any Individual.

Even if, he says, we could explain the state of a mind of a certain person measuring brain neurons or something, we wouldn't grasp it fully because we could only describe it from an outer perspective not from the persons inner perspective.

So what do you think? Is he on to something? Or is the Body-Mind-Problem so 18th century?

(later on he proposes God as an unlimited self conscious I-Subject, that may add laws to the world or extent the existing ones in a strong way)

Self-assembly of amino acids toward functional biomaterials

Self-assembly of amino acids toward functional biomaterials

Some of you believe that Amino Acids "self-assemble". They do not. Self assembly is a field of expertise that uses natural forces such as van der Waals forces, electrostatic forces, hydrogen bonds, and stacking interactions, to create new materials in a very controlled laboratory setting with scientists "creating" (their words not mine) new materials (not life). The published papers state very clearly that complicated materials cannot even be made , much less life: "The preparation of complicated materials by self-assembly of amino acids has not yet been evaluated." doi: 10.3762/bjnano.12.85

Members of this group have claimed of scientific evidence that organic life has been created in a laboratory from non-organic proteins and acids. I have seen references to things like "Study.com" of these claims here which is not a scientific source. Please cite an actual published peer reviewed study of this as it would be the greatest finding in the history of science and I would be absolutely amazed.

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.

I often have this conversation with theists, most often presuppositionalists, who argue that the laws of logic are immaterial and that this points to a god. I just don’t see it. It seems to me that the physical universe behaves in certain ways (or tends to) and the laws of logic are something we invented to describe this - like language or math. I don’t see the laws of logic floating around in the universe by themselves, and these descriptions seem to exist purely within our minds which are reducible to brain states. I’m an admitted materialist, so I don’t know how something can both exist within our universe and also not be material. Am I wrong here? I feel like I reach a sticking point in a lot of these discussions where they just insist I’m wrong and I insist only the material world exists.

I was talking to my friend about ghosts and aliens the other day. He's atheist I'm Christian, I am of the belief some ghost like figure exist, I've never seen one but I find it strange every culture from the beginning of recorded history has ghost-like figures they claim to see and experience. My point to him was, statistically, it seems illogical to say every single sighting and experience humans have had with "ghost" are all false simply because he belives nothing exit outside of the material.

That doesn't seem like science, because science doesn't draw conclusions, but scientists do. That claim is simply an opinion which is fine, but no more valid than someone who believes otherwise. I can understand being agnostic to the idea, but if over 1 million people claimed to see a 5-mile-sized ufo and weren't able to get evidence of that UFO from video recordings, we wouldn't simply say it didn't happen, at least in my head. it's statistically significant, even if it's impossible for a craft that large to vanish scientifically.

Same with alien abductions, I don't know what the hell these people are going through but there are too many experiences for every single person to be lying or just going through some type of sleep paralysis.

Even before the phrase "aliens" became popular there were tails of people being abducted by folklore creatures. Today we just call them aliens instead of fairies, gnomes, etc.

Questions, Do atheists deny the idea of the supernatural as a whole? Simply believing anything that isn't able to be studied with current technology doesn't exist?

Do you believe every experience people have from the beginning of recorded history till even today is all lying or misguided?

I'm making this in response to presuppositional apologists, and anyone saying in atheism there is no foundation to knowledge.

Here I attempt to create a philosophy which takes no presuppositions, and find what can still be concluded, or "known". If anyone sees any presuppositions or errors in it, please point them out!

Enough Preamble, here's my proposed philosophy:

---Experiential Pragmatism---

Foundations:

The foundational "truth" here is that "experience is happening". This is a self evident truth. This is similar to Descartes' "I think therefore I am", but even more general as it doesn't require an "I", or a time dependent process like thinking. This gives the sole fact about reality one can have 100% confidence in.

In additional to this, we can also have certainty in definitional truths. This is about language, and not reality. Not all definitions apply to reality.

As a final foundation, I would define knowledge as "An accurate description of your experiences". This would mean saying "I know the sky is blue", could equivalently be said as, "The sky being blue accurately describes my experiences".

Derivations of Knowledge:

From these foundations, we can now look at our experiences to learn what accurately describes them.

First off, time. I have memories of experiencing and having memories. My remembered self doesn't seem to have as much information as my current self. This allows me to conclude a framework of time is likely. In my experienced reality this fits very accurately.

Next, logic. My experiences have certain consistencies. It seems to always follow the laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, excluding middle). These very accurately describe my experiences. This means I can conclude logic, or that logic accurately describes my experiences. One key point, is that induction seems to work in my experiences. Using induction on my oldest experiences works for predicting my more recent experiences. I'll come back to this more later.

Next, other entities. In my experience, I experience others who seem to be having similar experiences to me. They make independent decisions. From this I can conclude there are likely other experiences happening, or at very least, this very accurately describes my experiences.

Using this method I can also reach conclusions about the laws of physics, astrology, art, etc.

Expecting the Future:

One important questions is: Do my past experiences predict what I will experience?

My current experience seems consistent with my memories of experiencing. From this is seems to be in the same category. Since I already "know" logic and induction, this means I can conclude these rules likely apply to my current experience, meaning I can predict I will continue to have experiences that will follow the same rules (or at least that this is most likely).

This is an important step, as it breaks us away from the idea that only know is real, and our past experiences are false memories, and that we'll have no future experiences.

All of our memories point us towards to just a framework of time, but predict we will have a continuation of experience. (With current experience becoming memory).

Limitations:

This framework gives no method for evaluating external reality, only our experienced reality. With my definition of knowledge, nothing outside of our experienced reality is knowable.

My method also relies much on induction. This means beyond the base foundation, no knowledge is certain. I can not be certain my future experiences will follow the laws of logic. My past experiences strongly predict that won't happen, but it is not a certainty.

Conclusion:

I believe this philosophy of Experiential Pragmatism has no presuppositions. It gives a framework for knowledge, a reason to trust logic, but doesn't over step the bounds of what is knowable.

Like I said before, if you see any presuppositions or flaws, please point them out!

A poll was taken that showed 67 percent believed that single celled organisms were produced in a laboratory by mixing molecules together. 36 percent believe scientists have mixed molecules together to make life forms such as frogs. Neither of these things are true in case you didn't know. Not even close.

Let's be honest there is no reason to believe the users on this forum polled wouldn't also give the same answers. No reason to assume you are in anyway scientifically literate.

Many of you here wouldn't dare make any sort of claim because you know how the game is played. I'll ask you Do you believe that life started from inorganic chemicals through naturalistic processes? And if you say yes, you know that I'm immediately going to ask you to demonstrate or provide evidence for this claim and you also know you can't do that.

So you won't say that is what you believe but it is the de facto assumption. You have nowhere else to go if you reject theism.

This is what you would have to demonstrate in order for even the most basics of life and apparently will always remain insurmountable:

1. Polypeptides- proteins and enzymes
2. Polynucleotides - RNA
3. Polysaccharides-carbohydrates
4. The origin of specified information in the above polymers

And here's the important bit:

1. Assembly of the above into an integrated functional living system (a cell). Not merely a mixture.

Since you guys have been enjoying exploring the similarities between Anthronism.

In my first two posts Atheism is Repackaged Hinduism and A Critique of Anthronism we started exploring Anthronism's roots in Hindusim. Anthronism is a convenient way to talk about atheism and all of the beliefs that necessarily stem from it; Materialism, naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, humanism, and secularism. (I understand atheists take issue with this and think their atheism exists in a vacuum, but I reject that idea because it is demonstrably false. That's another topic, however, so let's move on.)

Lets do a deeper dive and start to look at Brahman and how it surfaces in anthronism. In the other two posts, one thing I was consistently told, in one form or another, is that reality is the self-evident, all-encompassing essence from which all phenomena arise and to which all things ultimately belong, transcending human constructs and definitions. Or as many of you put it, reality is reality.

To this I say how very Hindu of you. Let me explain.

Brahman is the ultimate, unchanging reality in Hinduism. It is the foundational essence of the universe—infinite, all-encompassing, and beyond description. Brahman is not just a force or entity; it is everything, from which all forms arise and into which they return. Brahman exists beyond duality, beyond time and space, and cannot be fully captured by human thought or senses. All things in the material world are manifestations of Brahman, yet the individual forms we see are not Brahman in their fullest sense. Brahman is the ground of all being, the source from which all diversity emerges, and yet it transcends all things. Brahman is often described as sat-chit-ananda—existence, consciousness, and bliss.

In much the same way, the phrase "reality is reality" reflects the belief that reality is self-evident, all-encompassing, and ultimate. Like Brahman, reality in Anthronism includes everything that exists, whether it is known or unknown. It is beyond human definitions and conceptual frameworks, though we attempt to describe it using tools like logic, math, and science. Reality in Anthronism is seen as infinite, immutable, and comprehensive—there is nothing outside of it, and everything that is, was, or will be is part of reality. Just like Brahman is the ground of all being, reality in Anthronism is the foundation of existence. All forms, structures, and laws that we use to understand the universe emerge from this reality, but reality itself is more fundamental than any of these descriptions.

1) All-Encompassing Nature: Brahman is the ultimate source of everything. It includes all that exists, both seen and unseen, and there is nothing outside of Brahman. The entire universe, every thought, action, and form, emerges from Brahman and returns to it. Similarly, in Anthronism, reality is all-encompassing. Everything that exists is part of reality—nothing is outside of it. Even the abstract frameworks we use (math, logic) are part of reality, though they may not fully capture it. Both concepts express the idea that there is nothing outside the ultimate essence of existence.

2) Beyond Human Description: Brahman is described as indescribable—beyond human thought, language, or perception. While various forms of the material world can be seen as manifestations of Brahman, the true essence of Brahman is beyond the limits of our mind. Reality in Anthronism is similarly understood to be beyond full human comprehension. While Anthronists use tools like logic, math, and science to describe aspects of reality, they acknowledge that reality itself is deeper and more expansive than what these tools can capture. Both Brahman and reality in Anthronism are fundamental and ungraspable by the human mind in their totality.

3. Source of All Forms: Brahman is the source of all diversity and form in the universe. Everything we experience—whether physical objects, thoughts, or emotions—arises from Brahman, but these are not separate from Brahman; they are manifestations of the same ultimate essence. In Anthronism, reality is similarly seen as the source of all things. While we use descriptions like natural laws, logic, and math to make sense of the world, these tools are manifestations or aspects of reality itself. Everything that exists is derived from reality. Both concepts recognize that diversity arises from a singular, foundational essence.

4. Immutability: Brahman is unchanging, despite the constantly shifting and changing world of forms and appearances. It remains the stable, eternal truth beneath all the flux of the material world. Likewise, reality in Anthronism is unchanging. The material universe, with all its variations and processes, arises from reality, but reality itself does not change. Just as Brahman is the eternal foundation, reality in Anthronism is constant, even though the forms within it are subject to change.

5. Unity Behind Diversity: Brahman is the unity behind the apparent diversity of the universe. While we see multiplicity—different objects, forces, beings—all of this is simply Brahman in different forms. The diversity of the world is illusory (Maya), hiding the ultimate oneness of Brahman. In Anthronism, reality similarly unifies all things. Even though we describe reality through different frameworks (natural laws, mathematics, logic), these are all aspects of the same fundamental reality. Reality is one, even though it appears as many. The various manifestations we observe are part of the same underlying essence.

6)      The Inescapable Ground of Being: Brahman is the ground of being—it is that from which all things arise and upon which all things depend. Nothing can exist without Brahman. Brahman is imminent in all things yet transcendent beyond them. Reality in Anthronism plays a similar role as the ground of all existence. Everything is part of reality, and nothing exists outside of it. All things—whether they are physical, mental, or abstract—are grounded in reality. Reality, like Brahman, is both imminent (present in all things) and transcendent (beyond the tools used to describe it).

Honestly, the Hindu in me is starting to think reality is reality. By the time we are done with the analysis you guys will be dressing Ganesh idols in your home temples.

Next up: Maya.

Here's a teaser-Maya, as an illusory framework for the unenlightened, parallels logic, math, and science in that both provide necessary but incomplete tools for understanding and navigating reality, while ultimately obscuring the deeper, unchanging truth beneath the surface.

Namaste.

Recently, I've been pondering a great deal on what morality is and what it means both for the theistic and atheistic mindset. Many times, atheists come forth and claim that a person can be good without believing in God and that it would most certainly be true. However, I believe this argument passes by a deeper issue which regards the basis of morals in the first place. I've named it the "Groundless Morality" dilemma and wanted to see how atheists work themselves out of this problem.

Here's the problem:

Without any transcendent source for moral values, God-moral principles in themselves remain a mere product of social construction propagated through some evolutionary process or societal convention. If ethics are solely the product of evolution, they become merely survival devices. Ethics, in that model, do not maintain any absolute or universal morality to which people must adhere; "good" and "bad" turn out to be relative terms, shifting from culture to culture or from one individual to another.

Where do any presumed atheists get their basis for assuming certain actions are always right and/or always wrong? On what basis, for instance, should altruism be favored over selfishness, especially when it may well be argued that both are adaptive and thereby serve to fulfill survival needs under differing conditions?

On the other hand, theistic views, predominantly Christianity, root moral precepts in the character of God, therefore allowing for an objective grounding of moral imperatives. Here, moral values will not be mere conventions but a way of expression from a divine nature. This basis gives moral imperatives a universality and an authority hard to explain from within a purely atheistic or naturalistic perspective. Furthermore, atheists frequently contend that scientific inquiry refutes the existence of God or fails to provide evidence supporting His existence. However, I would assert that this perspective overlooks a critical distinction; science serves as a methodology for examining the natural realm, whereas God is generally understood as a transcendent entity. The constraints inherent in empirical science imply that it may not possess the capability to evaluate metaphysical assertions regarding the existence of a divine being.

In that regard, perhaps the existence of objective moral values could be one type of clue in the direction of transcendence.

Finally, the very idea of a person being brought up within a particular religious context lends to the claim that the best way to understand religion is as a cultural phenomenon, not as a truth claim. But origin does not determine the truth value of belief. There could be cultural contaminants in the way moral intuition or religious inclination works, yet this does not stop an objective moral order from existing.

The problem of Groundless Morality, then, is a significant challenge to atheists. Morality-either values or duties-needs some kind of ground that is neither subjective nor culturally contingent. Without appealing to the supposition of some sort of transcendent moral ground, it is not easy to theorize that morals can be both universal and objective. What, then, is the response of atheists to this challenge? Might it, in principle, establish a grounding for moral values without appealing to either cultural elements or evolutionary advantages?

Let's discuss.

I am guessing that the above question hardly needs asking, but there is some context behind the question that is really bothering me at the moment.

So I am what you could consider to be a doubting Christian, leaning ever more into agnosticism. Yesterday I read one of the most honestly sickening biblical stories I've ever read (I know, that's saying something), and it ends on an incredibly frustrating, disturbing note. It's the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16, Jesus tells of a Rich Man who went to "Hades, being in torment", and is begging Abraham for the slightest relief from his pain, and for his family to be warned about his fate, even if he himself cannot be helped. This is what's written next:

"29But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

So as I understand it, what the bible is basically saying here is that tangible proof of a Christian afterlife isn't offered, not because of some test of faith or something, but because non-believers will apparently not believe regardless, which is something I find frankly ridiculous. I think that most people are open-minded enough to change their minds with actual evidence given to them. So I wanted to ask any non-Christians: would you not be convinced any more with firsthand supernatural proof? Especially in comparison to just having the bible and preachers (as the current stand-in for "Moses and the Prophets"). Thanks for reading, I appreciate any responses!

Most atheist reject god due to the lack of evidence. I've never known an atheist who was so because they hated god. While the death toll of the global flood and other atrocities raise eyebrow upon further consideration, the stories aren't typically implemented in serious atheist argumentation. Where Christianity is concerned, things usually come down to whether or not jesus was a real person or not. For arguments sake, jesus could be real and god incarnate, and I'd wager most atheist would remain nonbelievers simply on principle. A god who would crucify his own son for following the rules is no god worthy of worship.

Over the years, i learned a thing or two about engaging with theists and atheists alike. While most of the time, it seems like mindless bickering, i have found that instead of trying to prove theist are brainwashed and talk down to them, I've leaned its best to try and explain why god is so unbelievable. One issue i have become laser focused on is the crucifixion of jesus and how it is an undeniable injustice. not just from the atheist perspective but first and foremost the cristian perspective.

Very few books have been this difficult to put down. Every page is literally overflowing with insight, and that's not an exaggeration. But halfway through the book, one paragraph has stood out from all the rest. On page 108, the second paragraph goes on to say, "Tarttulian argues the so called evil acts were instead just punishment. But the one single act the Christians could not view as just was the crucifixion of jesus

Now, this brings me back to my point about the crucifixion of jesus being wrong for all the worst reasons. if christians can not deny the crucifixion is an injustice, then it follows to reason that Christianity is irrational. Even if i were to play devils and steelman, the idea that god would judge atheist that wouldnt necessarily mean that atheism is wrong because that would assume god is wrong in his judgment. Where as if the crucifixion is an injustice, then so is Christianity even if jesus is god. In conclusion, i find moral arguments have far more salience than we may think.

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.

To preface, I’m Roman Catholic and it’s been interesting reading some of the conversations here. Just thought I’d share a few of my thoughts and receive some responses.

When broken down to its fundamental structure, the physical universe as we know it is composed of space, time, and matter. Atheists believe that the universe began with the Big Bang and a single, extremely dense mass of all matter that has ever, and will ever exist in the universe, exploded and expelled its contents across the universe. As I understand, the consensus among atheists is that we don’t know what created the density of matter in the first place, or what caused it to explode (or get more dense to cause it to explode). Without divine order and design in this process, I have a few issues with this theory.

Space, time, and matter (spacetime) all had to come into existence at the same instance. If not, every law of physics, to our understanding, MUST be wrong. For example, if there was matter but no space, where would the matter go? If there was matter but no time, when would the matter come into existence? I believe this points to divine power.

God, at least as Christians believe, is not in our dimension. He is outside of space and time, thus he is not limited to it. If he’s eternal, then the creation of all space and matter has an explainable starting point. It’s therefore plausible to conclude that time, as we understand it, came into existence together, since all 3 must exist simultaneously. This leads me to my second point.

All of this does not seem believable because it is LITERALLY beyond human comprehension. And that’s the point. After all, a God who is not infinitely more intelligent and powerful than we are is not a God worth worshipping. In other words, our understanding of the physical universe is limited to what God has allowed us to understand. If it were the same, or even close to the same, we would all be equal with God.

We cannot even begin to understand how God, in another dimension, not limited to any of the basic laws or principles of our universe, created everything there ever has or will be. And just because we will never be able to understand does not disprove God. Humans have a drive to find the explanation for things we do not understand. But it’s impossible to explain something that we cannot even comprehend or imagine.

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Thanks!