Iconoclasm is the belief that images and representations of saints and Jesus (used for religious reasons) are bad because they are idols and so should be destroyed or simply not used for religious reasons

Iconoclasm was temporarily present in byzantine christianity but was later condemned as heresy

Time later some protestant churches accepted iconoclasm and do still today, considering the iconodulia of catholicism and orthodoxy as idolatry

But there is a foundamental problem in considering every image and statue as idols

Exodus 25:18-20 (NIV)

And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover.

In this passage there is one of God's commands for the construction of the ark of covenant, and over it there are 2 golden statues of cherubim angels, and I'm sure that if they were in a catholic church iconoclast protestants wouldn't hesitate to call it idolatry.

By iconoclastic definitions, those statues are idols, also because people used to bow to the ark and so to them

Therefore, iconoclasm implies that God made people create and worship idols

Therefore iconoclasm is not only heresy, but also blasphemy.

God does much evil in the Bible. In fact, I can’t think of much good he does.

Examples:

Sending a flood that killed everyone. One may say “but they were bad people.” What about the animals, children, and unborn children? And do the 10 commandments not say “thou shall not kill?” Is God above his own word?

Demanding human and animal sacrifice. Examples are Judges 11:30–39, when Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to God. Also testing Abraham to sacrifice his son, only to stop him at the last moment. That likely left both with lasting trauma. Animal sacrifice: Exodus 12, Leviticus 9. Not to mention sacrificing his son, which is seen as a good act. But he is all powerful. He could’ve chosen to forgive our sins without sending his son as a sacrifice.

Exodus 11: 4-6. God kills all the first born sons in Egypt to punish the Pharoah. The Pharoah deserved punishment, but those children did not.

Deuteronomy 22:28–29. A girl is r4ped, and God makes the r4pist pay the girl’s father and marry the girl. So this girl is now married to her r4pist because God demanded it.

In Joshua 6:20–21 and Deuteronomy 2:32–35, God commands the Israelites kill many people, including innocent children and women. Again, what happened to thou shall not kill?

In 1 Numbers 31:7–18, God has the Israelites kill the Midianites, but keep the virgins alive. The Israelites then r4pe the virgins, and keep them as their slaves. In fact, slavery is condoned often in the Bible. (Exodus 21:20-21), Colossians(3:22-24), (Ephesians 6:5), (1 Peter 2:18)

The Bible says God is good many times, but actions speak louder than words.

Judaism holds that these texts, within their historical and contextual frameworks, do not support Christian interpretations regarding Jesus.

For example:

1. The Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53

• Christian Interpretation: Christians often view the "suffering servant" in Isaiah 53 as a prophecy about Jesus’ suffering, death, and role as a sacrificial savior. • Jewish Contextual Argument: Judaism traditionally interprets the “suffering servant” as the collective people of Israel rather than an individual savior. Historically, Israel endured suffering and exile, yet continued to serve God. Many verses in Isaiah refer to Israel as “my servant” (e.g., Isaiah 41:8, 44:1), suggesting this chapter follows that same pattern. Jewish scholars argue that the context of Isaiah speaks to the Jewish people’s suffering, redemption, and eventual vindication, fitting within the larger message of the Hebrew Bible.

2. Psalm 22 and the Crucifixion

• Christian Interpretation: Psalm 22 is often cited by Christians as foreshadowing Jesus’ crucifixion, especially verses like “They pierce my hands and my feet” (Psalm 22:16). • Jewish Contextual Argument: In the Hebrew text, the phrase translated as “they pierce” is contested; the Hebrew could also mean “like a lion at my hands and feet,” indicating suffering but not a literal piercing. Jewish interpretation holds that Psalm 22 reflects the personal anguish of King David or another psalmist rather than a messianic prophecy. This psalm is understood to be about someone who feels abandoned but ultimately trusts in God’s deliverance, with no link to crucifixion.

Jeremiah 31:31 – The “New Covenant”

• Christian Interpretation: Christians see Jeremiah’s promise of a “new covenant” as a prediction of the New Testament, establishing a new relationship between God and humanity through Jesus. • Jewish Contextual Argument: Judaism understands the “new covenant” in Jeremiah 31:31 as God’s promise to renew the covenant with Israel, leading them back to faithfulness. The “new covenant” is a revitalization of the existing covenant, not a replacement. This covenant, as seen in its context, remains focused on the Jewish people and their relationship with God through the Torah, rather than inaugurating a completely new religious framework.

From a Jewish perspective, these passages each have contextual and historical meanings that do not align with Christian messianic interpretations regarding Jesus.

Would love to hear more discussion regarding Jeremiah 31!

Did Muhammad die the death of acursed liar according to the Quran?

The Quran says in surah Al-haqqah [64:44] , “And if Muhammad had made some [false] sayings, we would have surely sized him by the right hand and cut his aorta”

Sahih al-Bukhari Narrated Aisha: The Prophet (ﷺ) in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “OAisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.”

Did Muhammad die the death of an accursed liar according to the Quran and these are authentic Hadiths Sahih al-Bukhari

Please friendly debate

First, definitions.

A primary source is defined as

a first-hand account of an event or topic that was created at the time it happened, or by someone who witnessed it.^123

The Key point is:

They are original documents, for example, a diary of a soldier from WWI

More examples:

Artwork, interviews, poems, treaties, etc.

A secondary source is simply one step removed and "...though **they often quote or otherwise use primary sources.**They can cover the same topic, but add a layer of interpretation and analysis"

Pretty simple, right? If you write a letter, that's a primary source. If I quote that letter in a book I'm writing, that book is a secondary source! great stuff!

Papias

Papias was (according to Wikipeda) a guy who wrote some books. Five of them to be exact. The church either lost, destroyed or just simply failed to maintain these books. It's such a shame, and awfully strange considering his importance in lending authenticity to the church. If we had these books, they would be a primary source!

But we don't.

In fact, we only have fragments of his work. Not fragments of manuscripts. Fragments preserved in quotes of other works, in other words....secondary sources.

So. That's it. Really, in a nutshell this is why asserting that Papias is a primary source demonstrates a lack of fundamental knowledge about either how primary sources work, or what we have of the people we consider primary sources.

#What if

What if we had anything other than secondary sources concerning Papias, and could actually claim that he is a primary source. What if, we just grant for the sake of argument that the quotes we have are primary sources. What does Papias tell us?

1. He tells us that he used confirmation bias.

(For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth)

2. He tells us he learned from hearsay, not the disciples of Jesus.

(And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders)

3. He tells us books are less useful than word of mouth which is extremely strange if we are using him to endorse written gospels.

(For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.)

4. And just for clarities sake, he was asking secondary sources for what primary sources would have said

( I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say)

So unfortunately even if we consider him a primary source, he doesn't give us primary source information. We simply cannot connect those lines using his own words.

#What if part 2

But what if we just grant Papias possibly got some good information. Let's look at what he says about this information, what can we get from Papias who possibly heard firsthand from a disciple?!

Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.

Oh... Well...that doesn't seem like something that happened. Why not only does it contradict every gospel we know of, it seems ridiculous that Judas became a Macy's day Parade. So we have a few options.

1. Papias knew stuff that didn't make it into the gospels.

2. Papias was gullible and fell for some ridiculous story that was not included or removed.

3. The Gospels Papias knew of are different than the gospels we have.

By no means are these the only possibilities but they are a few I can think of. By at least these three possibilities he would be an unreliable source.

Let's see if he says anything more interesting or can help lend good information about the gospels.

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him.

Ruh roh. Did Papias just endorse a non-primary source? Where did Papias get this information about Mark?

And the presbyter said this

Oh. So Papias has an anonymous source. Great. And we can't double check Papias himself because those 5 books are gone.

Matthew isn't even worth addressing because the Matthew we have is no more likely to be the Matthew Papias refers to than not. Since we have no information from Papias about the actual contents, and the contents don't match the descriptions, we cannot simply grant that they are.

I could and might make an entirely separate post about what other people thought about Papias' reliability, but this should suffice to demonstrate why simply claiming someone or something is a primary source is inadequate to determine if it is. Even more unfortunate is that we don't have any primary source material for New Testament documents. Not a one!

Many people over the internet says that in this verse jesus claimed to be god like before abhraham was i am the “i am” here translates to the name of god that jews knew yhwh so if i am translates to yhwh jesus is trying to say before abhraham was god in no way it says jesus is claiming to be god i anyone can point out a single verse where jesus claims to be god i would convert to Christianity the catch is there should not be anything that might contradict your claims

In the concept of the trinity, we observe the belief that:

The Father= God The H.S.= God The Son= God

But they don't equal eachother. But if we use logic the result should be

A (God)= B (F) A= C (H.S) A= D (S)

So it must be B=C=D which ends up as the heresy of modalism. To the non modalist, what would be your response?

I recently watched a video of William Lane Craig justifying the slaughter of the Canaanites (see, Book of Joshua) on the basis that God commanded it. It got me thinking about the Divine Command Theory which underlies his views. I object to this moral theory on the basis that it is a tautology because...

When we ask, “what is good” Divine Command Theorists say, “what God commands.”

If we ask what makes God’s commands good, they say, “his commands are a reflection of his good nature.”

If we ask what makes God’s nature good, they say, “God himself is the good.”

It is very plain to me that this is nothing more than a tautology logically equivalent to saying that “God is God” or “God is what he is.” Their answer to the question “what makes God’s nature good?” amounts to “God’s nature is good because he is God (or good)”, a circular and thus logically incoherent argument.

In this way, Divine Command Theory is self-refuting and renders the entire concept of morality meaningless. I welcome any objections to my reasoning.

For transparency sake, I don’t hold to the traditional tri-Omni God model. I do agree that “God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and that His Spirit can be felt by all people, everywhere.” However there also seems to be a difference between my understanding and belief and the standard.

For example, there are a few things God can’t do.

He can’t lie

He can’t sin

He can’t violate agency (the point of this post in a sense)

He can’t change

He can’t make a contradiction in logic (a round square, a married bachelor, a rock so big he can’t lift it)

He can’t create from nothing

Etc

So the “all powerful” statement seems to mirror more in line with having all power and ability that it’s possible to have.

With all of that in the background, I still don’t feel that even those that hold to the traditional trinity-Omni god goes against free will.

Let’s break it down point by point.

All knowing: god has all knowledge. He knows everything that will happen or can happen. Including what we will do, and where we will fall short.

If I knew all things, it doesn’t mean I suddenly control or rob people of their free will.

Let’s say that I see a car crash yesterday, I could time travel and go back and I would KNOW that the car was going to crash. And yet I wouldn’t be forcing them to crash. I would control them crashing or lack there of. Their actions and choices are their own. Even though I had a perfect for-knowledge of what was going to happen.

All powerful: God can do anything. Assuming the traditional sense, he could make whole new planets or dimensions. He could control all of us and make us puppets. And yet, he doesn’t or doesn’t need or have or will to. Having the ability to do something, doesn’t mean that one does that thing. I could crash into a wall in my car, it doesn’t mean I will or want to.

Everywhere: I feel this just goes along with all knowing. There is nowhere to hide. All things are known.

So, to me, instead of the triomni God violating free will, it’s rather that he could if he wanted to, but doesn’t.

You may wish he could. Or think he should. But that doesn’t mean he is or does.

We could get into “if he is all loving then why doesn’t he”, but I think that’s for another time. All one would need is a simple reason why he chooses not to do x, y, or z.

Edit: oh I forgot, I would love to hear your thoughts. I’m open to new ideas.

I should also note, I typically find debates very counter productive. Overly hostile and ending in name calling and belittlement. Seeking more discussion and exchange of ideas rather than persuasion. Thanks, yall rock.

Edit 2: ** let me be clear. This IS NOT a debate about my beliefs or conclusions. It IS ONLY a debate and discussion on how the tri-Omni God does not violate free will. I gave a brief example of my beliefs as a background, to state I’m not fully versed in the subject or adhering to it. The topic is not my beliefs. It’s the traditional/standard tri-Omni God and free will. Thank you **

Hello everyone,

being a layperson in this field, I am honestly puzzled why there is a plethora of logical fallacies (argument from silence, circular reasoning etc) in the field of New Testament studies. Furthermore, what behooves me is the notion of "internal evidence", when as I've shown below, arguments such as Editorial fatigue is easy to reverse in favour of a Matthean priority (Matthew was written first)

Quite frankly, a lot of these arguments can go both ways. Enjoy!

Edit: This article is easier to read in mobile if you read this link instead

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was there one loaf or no loaf?

Explanation: Mark begins by stating that the disciples had only one loaf with them in the boat, whereas Matthew says that they “had forgotten to bring any bread” (basically, they had no bread). Matthew maintains the “no bread” situation, while Mark seemingly lapses into a “no bread” situation” after copying Matthew

Shake the dust off the sandals or feet?

Explanation: Mark starts them off with saying that the disciples had sandals, but then later in the passage seems to lapse into lazily copying Luke by referencing “shake off the dust that is on your feet”. He goes from a sandals situation to a no-sandals situation.

Mark relapsing on the Synagogue Official?

Explanation: Mark begins by referring to the synagogue official as “Jairus”, but as continues later in the passage, he never refers to Jairus by his name again. Instead, he appears to be lapsing into copying Matthew and refers to him generically as synagogue “official.” 

Rewards?

Elaboration: In the case of Matthew, it makes sense for Jesus to state “he will by no means lose his reward” because the preceding verse talks about receiving a “righteous person’s reward” 

However, in the case of Mark, there was no such context- instead,the disciples were talking about “casting out demons in his name” and suddenly, Mark has ‘editorial fatigue’ and goes into talking about losing a reward out of the blue!

Did Jesus answer ONLY Peter or ALL the disciples?

Elaboration: In Mark, it was Peter who asked the question. However, Mark seemingly forgets that it wasn’t the disciples, but ONLY Peter, who asks the question and relapses into using the plural (“them”)

Who’s “they” in Mark?

Elaboration: In Matthew, using “they” makes sense because it’s a reference to “all the tribes of the earth” that will mourn and THEY will see the Son of Man coming. But in Mark’s case, Mark fatigues when copying Matthew as the “they” comes out of nowhere and doesn’t make sense, as he omits the “tribes of the earth”

Thesis: Isaiah 53 is often used as prophecy for Jesus as the messiah, connecting his suffering on the cross to the messianic mission despite the greater context showing Christians misinterpret the passage.

Isaiah 53 is quoted in the NT on multiple occasions to connect Jesus to Old Testament prophecy. Examples include Matthew 8:14–17, John 12:37–41, Luke 22:36–38, 1 Peter 2:19–25, Acts 8:26-40, and others. John’s gospel in the cited verses even specifically states that Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him. What is often overlooked is the greater context of the Deutero-Isaiah chapters with Isaiah not being the actual author, as an isolated reading of 53 will definitely show similarities in Jesus’ life.

This chapter is one of the four Servant Songs of Isaiah, and in Isaiah 49:3 Israel itself is identified as the servant. While Isaiah 49:5 is often used to support the idea it is really about a righteous remnant in Israel or individual. It is important to note this was written during the Babylonian exile, and while in second temple Judaism these passages were interpreted to be about the messiah the original context has no mentioning of the messiah. In Bart Ehrman’s book Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife, chapter 6, pages 110-113, Ehrman argues that the greater context is about Israel’s vindication and return from exile, that the resurrection was originally about Israel but eventually understood to mean individuals and eventually about Christ. He also argues that since the passage is written in past tense and has no mentioning of the messiah it is not about the coming messiah.

Several scholars have pointed out the Greek Septuagint translation of the passages differed from the Hebrew and did not preserve the Hebrew’s meaning which serve as the basis for the majority of NT quotations of the OT. Ultimately, we cannot be certain that the NT authors did not deliberately change their narratives to better fit Jesus in Isaiah 53, is it possible that these early claims about Jesus did match up with Isaiah 53, but it is equally just as possible that the authors looked for ways to connect Jesus with the messiah and forced their narratives to include such details.

I think this is a moot point however much Jesus matches this chapter, the context of the chapter is not to prophecy a future disconnected messianic event, but is an imminent or past tense prophetic message to the authors audience at that time. Ehrman’s blog goes more in-depth into the authors intent and that based on the verb tense is likely talking about suffering that has already happened.

To conclude my post and begin the debate, I want to reiterate that scholarships view on the passages show us a disconnect between Christian interpretation and the original texts meaning. This shows us that Christians looked to connect Jesus to the OT and interpreted non messianic passages as messianic outside their context. This undermines Jesus as the messiah as it becomes more apparent that true messianic prophecies are distinctly different from how Christians show Jesus to be the messiah.

Have you ever wondered what Christians believe about the Trinity? Are you curious about Judaism and the Talmud but don't know who to ask? Everything from the Cosmological argument to the Koran can be asked here.

This is not a debate thread. You can discuss answers or questions but debate is not the goal. Ask a question, get an answer, and discuss that answer. That is all.

The goal is to increase our collective knowledge and help those seeking answers but not debate. If you want to debate; Start a new thread.

The subreddit rules are still in effect.

This thread is posted every Wednesday. You may also be interested in our weekly Meta-Thread (posted every Monday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

Jesus exists beyond our perception of time and watches over us alongside God.

This is distinct from the New Testament concept of the Trinity as many believers understand it, as Revelation records God and Jesus with different attributes in each passage. It is important to discern this distinction.

Why is it that, in Revelation, the situation in which God sends His angel to John is recorded differently from the situation in which Jesus sends His angel to those described as the Spirit and the Bride?

　
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Have you ever noticed how God seems different in the OT and NT? How he seems more barbaric in the OT, while kind in the NT? Have you noticed how most of the controversial things in the Bible come from the OT?

Well Gnosticism fixes that problem. The Gnostics believed that the God in the OT and the God in the NT were two different Gods. The God of the OT was Yaldabaoth/Yahweh, and the God in the NT was the Monad, the highest being.

Do you really think an all good God would create a world and allow natural disasters? Say it’s okay to beat slaves as long as they don’t die in 2-3 days? Do the virgin bleeding test when not all women have their hymens after the deed so half of the women would be innocent and stoned? Put the tree of knowledge of good and evil next to Adam and Eve when he knew they would eat it? So many questions that Gnosticism easily solves.

Many dictators have and still do throw people in jail/kill them for not bowing down and worshipping them. They are punished for not submitting/believing in the dictator’s agenda.

How is God any different for throwing people in Hell for not worshipping him? How is that not evil and egotistical? How is that not facism? It says he loves all, but will sentence us to a life of eternal suffering if we dont bow down to him.

Christianity confirms not only that Jesus is the Son of God, but also that he is God.

"I am he."

If Jesus is the eternal, tri-omni God as described by Christianity, he was not sacrificing anything in coming to earth and dying. Because he cannot die. At best, he was paying lip service to humanity.

God (who became Jesus, remember) knew everything that would happen prior to sending Jesus (who was God) down to earth.

God is immortal, and all powerful. Included in this is the ability to simulate a human (christ) and to simulate human emotions, including responses to suffering, pain etc. But this is all misleading, because Jesus was not human. He was God.

The implication that God sacrificed anything is entirely insincere, because he knew there would be a ressurection. Of himself. The whole story of Jesus is nothing more than a ploy by God to incite an emotional response, since we empathise more with human suffering. So God created a facsimile of "human" out of a part of himself.

Death is not a sacrifice for an immortal being.

I was googling some stuff on islamic embryology and i came across this verse:

"then We developed the drop into a clinging clot, then developed the clot into a lump ˹of flesh˺, then developed the lump into bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, then We brought it into being as a new creation.1 So Blessed is Allah, the Best of Creators." Q'uran 23:14

The drop (drop of sperm) is called nutfah, the clinging clot is called alaqah and the lump of flesh is called mudghah. Now, what is the problem with this verse? It says that a sperm drop turns into a human eventually. Muslims generally interpret the alaqah to be the zygote, but even if it isnt the case, it is minimally true that sperm drop, through sucessive changes, eventually turns into a human being. This is factually wrong because it is not the semen that turns into the zygote, but rather the sperm cell inside it, which leaves the sperm (fluid) and travels inside the woman until it fuses with the ovum (female gamete) and forms the zygote, which will then develop into a fully grown human being.

There would be no problem if it merely said that we are formed from sperm (which is indeed claimed in other verses), but it clearly says that the drop of sperm turns into a human (the drop develops into a human), which is simply wrong, nor can this be gainsayed by affirming that the sperm cell is within the nutfah, since that would be like saying that it is acceptable to say that a uterus turns into an adult because the foetus inside it will turn into an adult.

This is a clear sign that, since Muhammad had no idea that sperm cells existed, he simply assumed that the semen itself is what turns into us (and also by being fused with the female fluid) rather than a minuscule cell inside it. But since muslims claim that the Q'uran is revealed directly from Allah unto Muhammad, this mistake is unpardonable.

Any clarifications that muslims may wish to provide?

I think the only way you can hold a position like this is if you adhere to a literal YEC interpretation of genesis and the Bible however this just isn’t how the world works.

Let’s face it, evolution is real there is not debate at this point. The way the ecosystem operates is largely dependent on life consuming other life and according to this interpretation this is a fallen trait a sign of evil infecting the world because of the fault of the devil and Adam and eves decision.

Under an evolutionary time scale you can’t pinpoint a single period where you can definitively say the world has fallen unless it was at the very beginning because the fossil record shows us that life has pretty much always relied on the consumption of other life to survive in some form.

The entire existence of the T-Rex calls into question the consistency of God’s morality if he created such a perfect killer of a monster, unless it was the devil which just over complicates this account of evil more.

I admit this argument is not fully formed by I do think I’m getting at something here what are your thoughts?

Why does Hegel cryticize greek and ancient religions calling them not freedom full enough? His point, as much as i understood and studied him, is about Christianity giving the full sphere of freedom towards law and belief towards God and the singularity. But where does exactly the Hellenic religion lack that? People were most of the times 100% free to state their opinions on the Gods as long as they didn't threaten them, with Plato being the quite literal opposite of Hesiod but still being both HIGHLY recognised by future poets and philosophers.

Maybe he could make a point about Gods not giving humans literal freedom and organizing his fate but, there's a catch in that, they do it because they are mostly concepts that influence the world and can even be interpreted not as Gods but rather Primordials, so basically natural forces the human cannot logically himselfsurpass. Ex: the goddesses of fate, Nyx, Thanatos etc... And even if we were to talk about "fighting the God himself" we would have characters in the mythos like Heracles or Diomedes who literally defeated Gods on either the battlefield or fights.

And in what should the Christian God be any better? He too influences highly the world with him often acting in the texts (sometimes even negatively) and creating the conditions for which true salvation must come by his word. if we were to be honest, would the Christian God really be that much freedom giving if he created a condition for which you cannot go to heaven by worshipping other Gods or none? Sure, salvation is not imposed by the texts, but it is more circular as you * would like and want to do it* in order to get it.

Is there something of Hegel i misunderstood and that would have let me understand his point in believing the Christian God gives to people more freedom than the Greek Gods do with them?

Thesis: Traditional Authorship is correct.

Some definitions:

Ad verecundiam, also known as the appeal to authority fallacy. Just because a person says something does not make it true. While authorities are often a good starting point for beliefs, they can be wrong, just like any person. You need to check claims against reality as much as possible.

Primary Sources, which are accounts (in various forms) from the people in the time period being studied.

Secondary Sources, which evaluate, analyze, or summarize primary sources.

We prefer primary sources over secondary sources, with secondary sources having value in things like containing lists of references we were not aware of, or having nice tables of data summarizing facts, and so forth. But they have no real intrinsic value in and of themselves - if a secondary source isn't based on primary sources, then it is detached from reality and nothing more than worthless speculation.

Primary sources are the gold standard, the bread and butter of historical argumentation. Can they contain errors? Sure. Sources will contradict each other sometimes, or misremember facts, and so forth. Historians work with errors in primary sources all the time - but they're still the gold standard that we build our arguments from. A person who makes a historical argument purely from secondary sources is not using the historical method, but engaging in a sort of meta-argument, which is acceptable when talking about historiography for example (the study of how we do history), but otherwise generally these things are considered to be a very poor historical argument.

But when it comes to critical biblical scholarship, such as the /r/academicbiblical subreddit, there is this weird inversion, where what secondary sources say becomes more important than what the primary sources say. The subreddit even generally forbids posting primary sources by themselves, you can only post what a secondary source says (Rule 3 of the subreddit.)

Whenever I see people argue against traditional authorship here on /r/debatereligion, it almost always leads off with a discussion of what the "academic consensus" is on the subject, and often it ends there as well. Many times the entire argument is simply "Bart Ehrman said something is true, and so it is true", which is an ad verecundiam fallacy. There is no value to simply saying Ehrman holds a view, or the consensus view is such-and-such, because if a person disputes a consensus view, you have to fall back on the primary sources and argue from there anyway. It's only useful in an argument, ironically enough, with people who already agree with you. In this case, the academic consensus that traditional authorship was wrong, and that the gospels were anonymous, is wrong.

I'll focus on Ehrman since he's the most famous, but his argument is very common, and widely accepted.

Ehrman's Argument: "the four Gospels circulated anonymously for decades after they were written." (https://ehrmanblog.org/why-are-the-gospels-anonymous/)

Counterargument: He uses the term anonymous incorrectly to start with, and then equivocates into the correct definition of anonymous later. Equivocation fallacy = invalid argument.

Details: He starts off by definition anonymous as "the authors don't identify themselves within the text itself". This is not what 'written anonymously' actually means, however. By Ehrman's logic, Harry Potter was written anonymously, because JK Rowling doesn't talk about herself in the books themselves. Rather the author's name is attached to the work on the spine, front cover, copyright page, and so forth. (We only see people putting their names in emails, letters, and so forth in modern life, and that's also what we see in the Bible.) So his definition for anonymous is just wrong. But it's important for him, because it allows him to take a claim that is only half correct (while John and Luke talk a little about themselves in the gospels, Mark and Matthew do not) and then equivocate that into a fully incorrect claim - that nobody gave the name of the authors (Matthew Mark Luke and John) until the time of Irenaeus or perhaps slightly before. That's the claim that Ehrman makes - that they circulated anonymously for decades by which he means they weren't even known as Mark, Matthew, etc., which is quite a different case all together.

Reality check - in no case in human history do we actually have documents that were important and nameless. We basically immediately give names to things because in order to refer to them they have to have a name. Bart says that they weren't given their names until around 150 to 170AD: "There are solid reasons for thinking that Gospels were in circulation by the end of the first century. But there are also solid reasons for thinking that at that point, at least, the Gospels had not been given their now current names." This is actually basically impossible. Metallica released an album with no name on the cover, so it immediately became known as the Black Album. It didn't take over a century.

Another claim by Ehrman: "But we have no record of anyone calling these books by their later names." (https://ehrmanblog.org/when-did-the-gospels-get-their-names/)

First - this doesn't mean they were anonymous. He thinks that calling the gospels collectively "the memoirs of the apostles" (Justin Martyr ~150AD, see also Clement 1 in the first century, see also Celsus ~175AD) and so forth means people didn't know who the authors were... but clearly they knew who the authors were! The apostles! What we actually don't have are any primary sources of people saying they don't know who the authors of the gospels are. Nor have we ever found an anonymous gospel, or evidence that the gospels were ever anonymous such as by them picking up different names, as Hebrews did. But you wouldn't know this if all you knew was the "consensus" view on the subject.

Second, we do actually have evidence of people calling the books by the four famous names! I'm going to switch to bullet points because otherwise this paragraph refuting Ehrman is going to get really long:

• Marcion (writing around AD 140) dismissed(!) the gospels of Mark, Matthew and John specifically because they were written by apostles that were criticized in Galatians! (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm)

• Papias (writing around AD 100) who was a disciple of John (and might dictated the Gospel of John - https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/anti_marcionite_prologues.htm) and neighbor to Philip (and his daughters), says that both Mark and Matthew wrote gospels (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm). There goes Ehrman's claim. Ehrman tries explaining it away, because of course he does, proposing they're not actually referring to the texts that bear their names. But Papias, knowing two apostles, is much better situated than Ehrman to know who wrote the gospels. Further, the gospels of Mark and Matthew were certainly known (Matthew more than most at the time) to people of the day.

** Polycrates of Ephesus (circa AD 190) confirms the above by writing that Philip the Apostle is now buried in Heirapolis along with his daughters, and John is buried in Ephesus. (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm) Note that people arguing that St. John the Apostle didn't write the gospel generally deny John in Ephesus at a late date, but this view in contradiction to the evidence we have on the matter.

• Ptolemy the Gnostic (writing around AD 140) taught that St. John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John. "John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle — that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103108.htm)

• The Muratorian Canon (AD 170) uses three of the names (the fourth is cut off), such as "The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke, the well-known physician Luke wrote in his own name..." and "The fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops entreated him, he said, 'Fast ye now with me for the space of three days, and let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to each of us.' On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should narrate all things in his own name as they called them to mind." (https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/muratorian.html)

• Tertullian (AD 200) while after Bart's cutoff date, is worth a read about the authenticity of the gospels (Against Marcion IV - https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian124.html) He also names all the gospels, for example: "Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master—at least as far subsequent to him as the apostle whom he followed… was subsequent to the others… Inasmuch, therefore, as the enlightener of Luke himself desired the authority of his predecessors for both his own faith and preaching, how much more may not I require for Luke’s Gospel that which was necessary for the Gospel of his master" (Against Marcion 4.2.5)

• There's plenty of other people after Irenaeus in AD 170, like Origen, Clement of Alexandria and so forth, which I only mention because they all agree on authorship despite being geographically very disperse. If the gospels were anonymous and only given a name at AD 170, it's implausible to see this geographically widespread agreement on the names. We'd see a Mark attributed to Philip, or a Matthew attributed to Peter. But we don't. We only ever see the gospels A) with names (never anonymously) and B) with the correct names.

• The anti-Marcion prologues (AD 150+) contain the traditional authors by name in front of Mark, Luke, and John. "... Mark recorded, who was called Colobodactylus, because he had fingers that were too small for the height of the rest of his body. He himself was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself, the same man wrote this gospel in the parts of Italy." https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/anti_marcionite_prologues.htm

• Justin Martyr (~AD 150) quoted the gospels that we know and said they were the memoirs of the apostles and may have quoted Mark and said it to be the memoirs of Peter in particular, which is what traditional authorship says. (Chapter 106 here - https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01287.htm) While he usually refers to the gospels collectively as the "memoirs of the apostles" in Chapter 66 of the First Apology he says: "For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them" and then quotes Luke (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm) So it's obvious he knows them as the gospels (and explicitly Luke as a gospel here) even before Irenaeus. He quotes all four of the gospels and calls them collectively the memoirs of the apostles.

• Building on the previous paragraph, the disciple of Justin Martyr, Tatian, knew all four gospels and created a synthesis of them called the Diatessaron (which literally means harmony of four). It quotes all four gospels.

• Polycarp (AD 69-155) was a disciple of John the Apostle. He stated that John the Apostle was alive and well in Ephesus at a late date, and composed the Epistles. Polycarp would recount stories "all in harmony with the scriptures" which Irenaeus stated explicitly elsewhere was the Gospel of John. John's disciple was Polycarp. Polycarp's disciple was Irenaeus. (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0134.htm)

• Theophilus of Antoich (AD 165) quotes the gospel of John and says it was written by John: "And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,' (John 1:1)" (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02042.htm)

Summary

Historical arguments are made by weighing primary sources for and against a thesis.

Here is the set of all primary sources that state that the gospels were circulated anonymously for decades prior to getting names circa 170AD: ∅

Here is the set of all gospels found missing their names: ∅

Here is the set of all gospels that had widespread geographical variability in their names (like with Hebrews, which was anonymous): ∅

Here is the set of primary sources of wondering who wrote the gospels: ∅

Yes, that's an empty set in each case.

There simply isn't any primary source evidence to support Ehrman's thesis. Zero. None. Nil. Nothing. There are no anonymous gospels, there are no sources saying that the gospels are anonymous, there are no people wondering about the gospel's authors, there is no variance in the naming of the gospels, there's no evidence there was a massive campaign to give all the gospels the same name from France to Egypt.

So what he predicates his belief on is conspiracy theory thinking. This thinking involves looking at the evidence and deciding that you really know better than your evidence what actually happened. This is how 9/11 truthers convince themselves that they have secret knowledge about what really happened that actually flies in the face of all the actual facts. But conspiracy thinking is not actual evidence. It's not a primary source. It's an anti-academic way to explain away evidence, rather than using evidence to shape one's opinion.

But he has the gall to say that traditional authorship is just speculation, "tradition", as if we don't have primary sources saying traditional authorship is correct.

Here's Irenaeus: " We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm)

Here's the set of primary sources that agree with traditional authorship: Marcion, Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Tertullian, Theophilus, the anti-Marcion prologues, the Muratorian canon, Ptolemy the Gnostic, Polycrates, and actually more (probably at least 10 more sources from the first two centuries AD... Claudias Apollinaris... Heracleon... tbd).

So when we weigh the evidence up, there is no evidence for Ehrman's theory, and a ton of evidence for traditional authorship.

Therefore, if you are a person who believes in evidence based reasoning, then you must accept traditional authorship and reject conspiracy theory thinking.

If however you do not engage in evidence based reasoning and base your beliefs on the ad verecundiam fallacy instead, then by all means continue believing they were anonymous for a century before having any name. Keep saying in debates here that "there is a consensus" on the matter and just stop there because you have no actual evidence to support your views.

The ultimate source of prior cognitive information could've been from:-

1. human

2. non human animal

3. In-animte object

4. chance

5. natural selection

6. non natural source (God)

7. Human beings - It prompts the question: where did this human acquire their prior cognitive information? This inquiry, if pursued further, leads us into the realm of infinite regress, a philosophical quandary.

8. Non-human animals - While inituitively appearing improbable, the notion invites scrutiny: from whence did these non-human animals derive their prior cognitive information? Such inquiry, too, thrusts us into the labyrinth of infinite regress.

9. Inanimate objects - lack the capacity for knowledge acquisition or transmission of thoughts. Non-intentional processes obstruct our ability to elucidate thoughts, languages, and subjective experiences is an absurd possibility. 

10. Chance - This posits the notion of cognitive information arising solely from random occurrences. However, chance fails to provide a satisfactory explanation due to its inherent implausibility.

11. Natural selection - This concept falters in its premise that survival and reproduction necessarily correlate with the capacity for reasoned judgment or coherent thoughts. For instance, consider cockroaches: they survive and reproduce, yet lack rational cogitation. Cognitive science posits that possessing true and empirical perceptions does not necessarily confer evolutionary advantages.

12. Non-natural source - The logical deduction leads us to postulate a transcendent, living causative agent. Why must this agent be living? Living beings possess rational preconditions requisite for any pedagogical attributes.

Hi

I would like to present a humble argument to prove the existence of God, which I believe is a straightforward, clear, and sufficient argument to establish the existence of God.

To physicists and philosophers, please be considerate of the essence of the argument, and if you find anything incorrect, I hope you will comment on it(do not be obnoxious!).

1-If we trace the path of entropy from the present back to before the increase at the Big Bang, we will arrive at one of two possibilities: either zero entropy or an eternal quantity of entropy.

2-Both possibilities confirm the existence of a beginning.

Thus, there must be a force that caused the beginning of the universe.

The first premise is clear since entropy by its nature always takes a positive value. Therefore, if we go back in time to before the Big Bang, we will inevitably reach one of the two possibilities: either zero entropy or an eternal quantity of entropy.

I believe the second premise is the one that carries a claim some might doubt: Does either possibility really prove the existence of a beginning?

I will confidently answer yes, and I have support for this.

When considering the first possibility-reaching zero entropy and then increasing at the Big Bang- we find this to be the most likely and reasonable possibility, conclusively proving that there is a beginning. I don't think anyone can reject this!

As for the second possibility, which is less likely and reasonable than the first, it also, in its strangeness, proves the existence of a beginning. This involves the possibility of an eternal quantity of entropy before the Big Bang, which increased at the Big Bang (about 13.8 billion years ago). For the quantum system to maintain an eternal quantity of entropy, it necessarily requires processes that preserve entropy for an eternal duration without any increase. Any increase, even slight, over an infinite duration would lead to infinite entropy, but we know that entropy was not infinite at that time.

There is no way for entropy to remain in this state (an eternal quantity without increase) except through ideal periodic processes. Any irreversible or non-reversible processes over an eternal duration would produce an infinite quantity of entropy(since each such process produces a certain amount of entropy, and with the succession of processes, with each differing from the previous one, there would be an infinite quantity of entropy), Additionally, irreversible processes would have a kind of beginning, since each process must be different from the previous one, and this change requires a cause. These reasons clarify that the only way for the quantum system to maintain an eternal quantity of entropy without any increase is through ideal periodic processes, which by nature are non-productive. This is confirmed by Anthony Aguirre and John Kehayias:

"It is extremely difficult to devise a system - especially a quantum system that does nothing 'forever, then evolves. A truly steady or periodic quantum state, which lasts forever, will never evolve, while a quantum state with any degree of instability will not last indefinitely."*

Thus, it becomes clear from the above that both possibilities confirm the existence of a beginning.

There is nothing that compels eternal matter, which follows eternal ideal periodic interactions in an

eternal system, to suddenly change and produce the Big Bang.

It seems that logic drives us toward a justified conclusion: the existence of an intelligent force that

caused that beginning. Given the above, it is impossible to justify the increase in entropy at the Big

Bang without the existence of an intelligent force that made that decision.

Anthony Aguirre and John Kehayias, "Quantum Instability of the Emergent Universe,"

arXiv:1306.3232v2 [hep-th] 19 Nov 2013. They are specifically addressing the Ellis-Maarten model,

but their point is generalizable*

I concur that the existence of our reality in the complex state of which it is is utter verity of an extremely intelligent creator.

Would it not make logical and rational sense that creation itself imposes a Creator? Especially the one of which we all partake in; one of which is so utterly complex and simultaneously perfectly suitable for our species to live, and not only to live, but thrive?

I am a health science student at my local university. 19 year old kid so assume I know nothing. Grew up in a Christian household but only recently converted after feelings of utter hopelessness outside of a faithful lifestyle and putting faith in Christ. I see the complexity of the human physiology and cannot logically conceive this could just happen out of nothing or that a Creator could not have been responsible for this electro-chemical-mechanical physique that is capable of running incredibly complex and minute processes such as bioenergetics and protein synthesis.

I see so many posts here refuting the idea of a God. Rebuking spiritual notions of existence. Reprimanding the idea of a biblical hell. I impose a question on atheistic viewpoints and stances: how is it that you see this wonderful creation, the complexity of existence, and the perfectness of our environment, and utterly deny the existence of a overarching dietary.

I finalise my statements by denoting that I am not yet within 100 miles of discussion of the God of the Christian faith. Although I am a Christian and see the Bible as the most practical and reliable means for which religion is, I am merely focusing on the mere existence of a God or Creator as opposed to the latter, a lack of such. Please be gentle with me, this is my first post and I'm just a kid.

So I was watching the Robin Hood remake with Tarzan Egorton and there’s a scene where the sheriff of Nottingham is meeting with a Cardinal. At one point in the meeting the Cardinal tells the sheriff “Fear is the greatest weapon in God’s arsenal. It is why the church created Hell.” It got me wondering “Is Hell a creation from the church?” I later saw an UberFact tweet that read “there is no mention in the Bible that Satan resides in Hell.” All of this I found very confusing. Did the church create Hell as a means to control its followers? Some say when Jesus mentioned the “gnashing of teeth” he was referring to Gehenna which was a burning field of trash outside of Jerusalem. Could this be a misinterpretation? The Bible mentions “God knew you before he created you.” Does that mean God even knew that you would go to Hell due to your actions, and if so why create you to begin with if ultimately you’re destined for eternal torment? I really don’t know. It all seems very confusing and someone coercive.

Half of eloquence is sensability and yet once finds the Qur’anic corpus highly lacking therein. Consider that God says اولم ير الذين كفروا ان السماوات والارض كانتا رقتا ففتفنهما وجعلنا من الماء كل شىء حى افلا يومنون meaning, ‘And what! Have not those who have disbelieved considered that the heavens and the earth were closed up, and we rent them? And we made from water all things living. Shall then they not believe?’

How can the Quran be considered eloquent if it contains such bad logic and debating? It makes no sense to ask whether any group has pondered, realised, or known, that the heavens and earth were closed up, because no group can prove this for themselves.

It is then ridiculous to suggest that this eloquence can only be understood in Arabic. I must repeat that part of eloquence is sensibility, and questioning man in such fashion demotes its sensibility in any language.

Again one sees the Quran saying وما منع الناس ان يوموا اذ جاءهم الهدى الا ان قالوا ابعث الله بشرا رسولا قل لو كان فى الارض ملاىكه يمشون مطمئنين لنزلنا عليهم من السماء ملكا رسولا meaning, ‘And nothing has prevented the people from believing when came to them their guidance, save that they have said, Hath God engendered a man as a prophet? Say [thou], had there been in the earth angels walking undisquieted [then] verily, we would have sent unto them, from [the] heaven[s] an angel as a prophet.’

This seems a form of manipulation, where God limits our problem to questioning why God would send a human as a messenger, and solves us of it by suggesting that only a man is fit for mankind. Let us first remember that this is not our problem: our problem is a lack of manifest evidence (and even if this be not considered in the Quran, think of phrases like وجدنا اباءنا لها عابدين meaning, ‘We found our [fore]fathers to them, worshipers’ where people do not have a reason to move traditions &c.) and beyond manifest evidence Islam is a religion where most people cannot even verify the supposed monolingual eloquence, leaving them to worshiping a God, who they have found their forefathers worshiping, a thing the Quran was showing could happen in ignorance.

All in all, eloquence is multifaceted, poetry with rhyming and random words is uneloqeunt, and even though there might be criteria for such in some languages, that is left at the comprehension of the people, who were likely to talk a slightly more realistic sounding set of beliefs, constructed in a form of poetry in their native language, as eloquent, not pondering deeply.

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

I feel it is argued that evil exists due to the fall of man. However, in the story of genesis, God says that if they eat the fruit, they’ll see the good and the evil, meaning evil was all ready there. The serpent tricking Eve is also a testament to evil all ready existing. Thoughts?

EDIT2: this what I get for bringing science into this sub🤣 EDIT: (Replace frequency with “source”, source as in the medium in which superposition takes place across the entire universe before wave collapse and definitive state. that’s better than trying to explain frequencies approaching infinity, actually here this is simple: if x reaches infinity it goes back into superposition, superposition and infinite state are interchangeable.)

God can be understood as an infinite frequency, a concept that frames God as the boundless, all-encompassing presence underlying all existence. This isn’t just metaphorical; by seeing God as an infinite frequency, we approach the idea that God is not confined by measurable limits or physical constants, like Planck’s limit. Instead, God encompasses all and acts as the medium for existence, something beyond matter, time, and space.

       Infinite Frequency: Unlike sound or light frequencies, an infinite frequency exists without measurable bounds. God, as this frequency, surpasses all finite constructs, existing beyond human comprehension.

Superposition of the Vacuum: If God is the infinite medium in which all things exist, then God holds the “superposition” of the vacuum—meaning that God is present in the very “space” or potential where existence unfolds. The vacuum contains all potential, and as its ultimate superposition, God is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere confined.

Beyond Light and Form: Just as light requires a medium, finite existence needs an infinite presence to be measured or emerge from. God, as the ultimate frequency, is both immanent and transcendent—permeating all things while surpassing everything finite.

Conclusion: This idea redefines God as the infinite, sustaining essence of the universe. Seen this way, God is both the source of all and the space that allows for creation to take place, a mystery that is at once profoundly close and infinitely beyond us.

This is a much more general idea, but I want to hear other opinions on this. Most religions, at least to my limited, Christian raised but agnostic by 12 perspective, imply some practical lesson which can be implied to life. Jesus essentially acted as a life guru for humans who found misfortune in their Abrahamic religion. Many Jewish laws act to protect from historically dangerous things like tattoos which often got infected. Additionally, looking at the original Hebrew can sometimes imply that things like hell are a metaphor used for those who live an unfulfilled life. To my knowledge, almost every religion follows this framework; Buddhism has some extremely deep ideas about living a “happy” life and Hinduism literally tells people what they should try to obtain in life.

Almost every religion has some type of subjective idea or lesson. Often, these ideas feel very human. Almost all virtues logically lead to human happiness, no religion does not encourage peace and happiness in life and most religious restrictions or laws can logically be explained as something to make your life better, or more safe. For this reason, I often feel like none of these religions reflect a true mythology. There’s nothing in the natural world which dictates that life obeys human reason, yet almost all religions have this commonality. Personally, I find that accepting almost any of these religions as the mythology of reality requires you accept humans are special in some way, and this to me is a massive indicator that religion is derived from human ideas and not some spiritual force. What is everyone else’s thoughts on this?

Some things I’d like everyone to know: I’m not trying to prove the existence of God nor am I saying every atheist does this.

Unless I’m horribly mistaken, the general consensus among everyone was that science can’t prove or disprove the existence of a God. If that’s the case, why do a lot of atheists I find try and use science to disprove him? Just because something like evolution exists doesn’t automatically mean that God doesn’t exist.

I’m aware there are a lot of Christians who try and use science to prove God’s existence, like the order of the cosmos just as an example. While I find that to be pretty fascinating, as well as logical and pretty convincing at least to me, ultimately I’m aware, that doesn’t fully mean God exists.

I’m also a non-denominational Christian and believe God does exist if that holds any relevance.

This is my first time ever posting something like this so I’m sorry if this all seems a little weird and disjointed.