I'm not getting at it from a bible skeptic perspective per se but more so considering the context of what is written and how it was written. You have a substantial amount of very specific things Jesus supposedly said written after many decades of his death, all passed along from oral tradition. So how on earth would they get it right and how would they remember it all? Isn't it more likely the authors just heard a bunch of rumors and stories and then put it all together using their own teological agenda and literary style? I get being able to remember the things he did, but all those specific quotes and messages from him??

Logical fallacies

Things everyone should learn more about are the common logical fallacies people make during an argument without realising. You cannot just Straw Man your way through an argument, or bring up Red Herrings left right centre or even AD Hominems where you attack the person your arguing with character rather than dealing with the argument.

I have attached a video I found on YouTube because I don't have time to go through the all. Hope it was beneficial and i hope this post doesn't offend anyone. Sorry in advance if I did.

I just realized now that Adam and Eve didn't become sinners after eating of the tree of knowledge. You know,in some religions it's say that Adam and eve condemn all humanity to sin because eating of that tree,but,the fact its,the sin was before that eveniment.They disobey God by eating from the fruit,"disobedience"its a sin,so the sin was in humans before eating from tree.

The real problem i have with Orthodoxy isn’t veneration of saints or icons or the communion. I believe these are acceptable and could be right beliefs. The real problem i have with Orthodoxy is that by putting the scripture on the same level of the church tradition your theology often goes to rewrite the meaning of a text from the Bible. These may seem a small issues but they aren’t.

Let me explain better, in Genesis there’s this being called Leviathan: a sea monster. In the orthodox tradition holds it identifying him with the devil and evil and the message of the story is that God will win over evil. From an academical point this is false: the Idea of Devil wasn’t present yet in the theology of Genesis; and the message of the whole story is that Yahweh is God. Leviathan is a common mythological being that was present in many other religions in that geographical context, for example the Baal cycle. The author substituted Baal with Yahweh to simply state in a better way for his audience that he was God.

Another example is Matthew 2:13-15 the orthodox view is that the prophecy is an actual prophecy (and not a typological one as the majority of scholars view it today). The problem with this is that the overwhelming majority of scholars acknowledges that Hosea 1:11 from which this prophecy comes from: is NOT a prophetic text and the Son in that verse is NOT the Messiah but Israel and it is a verse talking about the past (the Exodus) not the future. The verse in Matthew 2:13-15 is typological: in the sense that it takes the prophecy not in a literal way but uses the same words to communicate a concept.

there are a lot of these examples where Church tradition, that is still held by the Church today, is simply wrong: studies show that these text don’t mean what the Church says they do no matter what saint said so: but still the Church Holds them. And the church claims to be guided and that it preserves the original apostolic faith, and so it is infallible. In my belief, no denomination has figured it all or is without error, but the problem emerges when one church claims to be and is proven wrong by these little details.

Ultimate problem: the fact that there is no good evidence for Christianity to support its claims. At the end of the day, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, no extraordinary evidence has been found. Oftentimes, Christians will poorly cite Josephus, which only mentions that Christians existed, or bring up the martyrdom of the apostles, of which we only know 2, and even then, the details are very blurry (did they get a chance to recant? Did they recant, but were still killed?). This leaves us needing to have faith and let God “work in our lives,” however, every religion claims the same thing, and every religion asserts that you will see the changes in your life. Finally, had there been good evidence for a religion, everyone would be a member of that religion and there wouldn’t be a need for faith. It would be a common-known fact as to which religion is correct.

Personally, I believe that to be the single best reason as to why Christianity can’t be correct, however, to add on, there are various other facts, and ideas, that make the religion unbelievable (and not in a good way).

*The concept of Hell: it’s already been established that there isn’t extraordinary evidence for Christianity and the miracles of Jesus. So, say that you were born in a Muslim country. More likely than not, you would be a Muslim, setting your faith and trust in Islam, whilst seeing the evidence supporting Christianity as lacking. In the Christian doctrine, this would land you a spot in eternal Hell. Personally, I find this to be the most outlandish idea possible. Someone doesn’t find the evidence compelling and can’t believe in something that they see as false, and that makes them deserving of going to Hell? You would think that if Hell is real, and God wants to save us from Hell, that he would do everything in his power to convince as many people as possible to believe in him. Furthermore, the whole concept of Hell shows God as someone who plays favorites, since if you are born in a Christian country, you are more likely to be saved, whilst if you are born in an Islamic country, you are more likely to be damned to eternal torture. Rather, I’d like to propose the idea that Hell is a manmade doctrine, to keep people within the faith. If there was no concept of Hell, how many people would actually be Muslim or Christian? I’d like to contest that the number would be much smaller. Instead, we are left with a religion that holds a gun to your head, stating, “believe in me or spend the rest of eternity in eternal punishment.” Furthermore, there is no reference to eternal Hell in the Old Testament, but rather, Sheol, or the grave. Yes, some Christians will state, “but the Bible clearly is talking about annihilation!” Or, “the Bible clearly is referencing universalism!” However, there are so many ways to twist the Bible into making it say what you want to believe, which itself deserves another point on my list.

*False Messiah: Jesus clearly didn’t complete the expectations of what the Messiah would be like, considering what God told the Israelites.

*Confusion with the Bible: “For God is not the author of confusion,” yet we are left with 30,000 Christian denominations to choose from. How could a book by God be made in such a way that believers are left with not knowing what to follow? Is baptism required for salvation? Is it faith + works, or only faith? What does the concept of Hell look like? Are we to observe laws and rules from the Old Testament? Can Paul’s letters be trusted, or is he the antichrist as mentioned in Revelations (yes, this is a belief that some Christians hold)? At the end of the day, there are so many ways to interpret the Bible to make it fit what you want to believe. As a result, this leads me to believe that the Bible was written and directed by men, not by God who wanted to provide the most accurate information possible.

*How the Bible became canon: At the end of the day, humans chose which books went into the Bible. There is no indication that they were guided by God to choose which books were right, but instead, they wanted to create a story that was as connected as possible. Who is to say that God wanted some books to not be included in the Bible? Instead, we are left with humans choosing what is/isn’t to be included, making me doubt whether or not this truly can be the word of God.

*Fake prophecies: throughout the Bible, God’s “prophets” lie to the reader quite a bit. For example, at first, it may seem like Daniel managed to predict tons of events accurately with his prophecies. However, as you look further, you find out that he managed to “predict” things so well because he was writing after the events had already come to pass. How can the Bible be trusted, if God’s “chosen” prophets are lying to me whilst I am reading? Furthermore, the Bible makes tons of prophecies which have not come to pass, and will not come to pass. Finally, tons of prophecies are made vague and without any details, such as, “there will be many wars to come,” which can be applied to any timeframe in human history. Nonetheless, Christians will gobble up such prophecies, proclaiming that the end times are upon us.

*Gospel accounts: the fact that the gospel accounts are not eyewitness accounts. Who knows how long the game of telephone was to get the information depicted in the gospels. Also, how can I trust the gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke when they blatantly copy from Mark and source “Q”? Shouldn’t they give their own account, rather than copy from an earlier gospel? To add on, we also know that some of these gospel accounts are historically inaccurate (such as, did the man come to Jesus, asking for help, whilst his daughter was dying, or was she already dead?)

*Lying in the New Testament: there was no “worldwide census” as described in the NT. There was no execution of children under the age of 2. There were no zombies walking around the city of Jerusalem after Christ rose in the gospel of Matthew. If the gospel is willing to make up such details, what else are they willing to make up?

*Misused prophecy: in the gospel of Matthew, he quotes Isaiah 7 as predicting the virgin birth of Christ. Isaiah 7 quite literally has nothing to do with Jesus or predicting his birth, and furthermore, the original Hebrew text doesn’t even say, “virgin.” The earliest account, the gospel of Mark, doesn’t even include details about the virgin birth, nor do the letters of Paul. For such a monumental event, you would think that these 2 would talk about it. This leads to my point: if Matthew is willing to lie about or exaggerate the details about Jesus’ virgin birth, was he lying/exaggerating about Jesus’ miracles as well?

*Jesus’ burial: more likely than not, Jesus wouldn’t have been buried in a tomb. Instead, he would be left hanging on the cross, and then thrown into a grave in the ground. This historical fact heavily contradicts what the gospel writers were talking about. It is very, very unlikely that Jesus would be placed in a tomb for the capital punishment that he was charged with.

*The abrupt ending of Mark: Mark ends with the women not telling anyone about the empty tomb. It doesn’t mention that Jesus appeared to any of his disciples, or for that matter, anyone else. You would think that if Jesus did appear to people after his death, that the author of Matthew wouldn’t forget to include such a monumental moment that does in fact prove that Christ has risen. In later gospel accounts, the gospel authors seem to add on details to the story, since the ending of Mark was unsatisfying. Furthermore, amongst the gospel accounts, we get different descriptions of where Jesus appeared to the disciples. In one of the accounts, it says that Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee, whilst in another one, it says that it happened in Jerusalem. Once again, such key details are being tampered with and left out.

*Similar to Jesus: There are many figures at the time which seemed to have inspired the Jesus story. Most notably would have to be Dionysus, who also converted water into wine, had a virgin birth, was a god on earth, completed miracles, and was resurrected after his death. It seems like the gospel authors wanted to propel Jesus as a mythological figure, taking aspects from other stories and incorporating it into their own (especially as previously mentioned, Jesus most likely wasn’t even born of a virgin).

*Jesus’ failed prophecy: In the Bible, John the Baptist said “the ax is at the root of the trees,” predicting the beginning of the end times. Jesus then prophesied a great number of things that will happen before the end times, such as wars, false messiahs, and the sun going dark. He ends this prophecy by stating that “this generation will certainly not pass” before all of these things happen. Finally, Paul urged people in his letters to not get divorced and to not marry, worrying that the world would soon be gone to trouble over such things. At the end of the day, nothing happened. The generation Jesus was talking about passed away, and the end times still have not come (if anything, we are moving away from them, it seems).

*False stories: stories such as Adam and Eve, The Great Flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah are just blatantly false, yet still included. Moses most likely didn’t exist as described in the Bible, and the Exodus is either fully a lie, or heavily exaggerated from what actually happened (Israelites had a high chance of being descendants of Canaanites). This then proposes the question: what else is lied about in the Bible or heavily exaggerated? Is the story of Jesus told correctly, or also overexaggerated? Also, it may not seem like a big deal that the story of Adam and Eve is fake, but when Paul in his own letters uses this story to promote sexist ideas (such as that women should be submissive and not have any authority over men), it does promote some major issues (1 Timothy 2:12).

*Origin of sin: clearly, the story of Adam and Eve is fake. If so, where did original sin come from? Is there even such a concept as original sin? Why is it that humans were designed with sin, but other organisms were not? Evolution pretty much proves that humans are animals. Why are we animals burdened with sin, and when did God choose to put the curse of sin upon us? To me, rather than assume that we are born in a sinful state, and that God decided at one point in the evolutionary chain to curse us with sin, it makes much more sense to say that there is no God and that we evolved to our current state.

*Sexist ideas: throughout the Bible, there are many notions that women are second-class citizens when compared to men. Women, as we can recognize in the modern day, aren’t that different from men. So, why would God, who is “good” and “all-loving,” create women who could be taken advantage of by men? Instead of saying that the Bible is a book inspired by God, I believe that it’s much more likely to be written by men, wanting control/authority over women.

*God’s evil deeds: from promoting chattel slavery, to infanticide (Canaanites were performing child sacrifices, so let’s go kill the children for them?), to the pillaging and destruction of kingdoms, to me, this doesn’t sound like a “loving” and “good” God. Of course, you can always argue that whatever God does is “good” (even if it’s something horrific), but then, by those standards, is there a moral standard for good on Earth? Instead, the Bible reads as people trying to justify their horrible and grotesque actions by putting the blame on God. Knowing that the Exodus is severely exaggerated, and that the Israelites didn’t storm into the land of Canaan, killing everyone, it seems like the writers on purpose wanted to paint their God as someone who killed and wanted death for the fun of it. Once again, the whole OT reads like people making up a God who does horrible things, all in the name of being able to justify their own twisted actions.

*Multiple gods in the OT: In the Old Testament, there are references of multiple other gods. Each region had their own god who they would listen, obey, and follow. It also seems like Yahweh was at war with these other gods. Right off the bat, this makes the OT seem like a certain group of people wanted their own god, and that’s where the whole description of Yahweh comes from. Furthermore, there is no mention of these multiple gods anywhere in the NT. Where did they go all of a sudden?

*God in the OT: Another problem is that God in the OT only showed himself to the Israelites. If he wanted everyone to follow him, and created people to glorify his image, why wouldn’t he show himself to everyone? Why only limit himself to the Israelite people? God only shows himself to the Israelites, and then has groups like the Canaanite people punished for not following him or his ways. How does this make sense, if it all could’ve been avoided if God had just revealed himself to these people in the first place?

*An omniscient God and the case of free will: When God creates us, he knows exactly what we will choose to do before we are even born. He knows who will end up dying as a Christian, or who will end up dying as an Atheist, to be sent to Hell for the rest of eternity. Remember, all before we are even born! He already has this knowledge stored in his mind! So, immediately we can ask, why would God follow through with the creation of someone who was DESTINED to Hell? Also, why couldn't God create a reality in which he would only create the people that would freely choose him, whilst letting those that would freely choose to deny him to never be created? Anyways, with this omniscient God problem, let me bring up an example. Say that you have an option to choose between an apple and a banana. You believe that you have free will to choose either one, and choose to accept the apple. You believe that you had the free will to choose, however, when God created you all of those years ago, he knew that you would choose the apple. He created you in a way to choose the apple, and not the banana. Free will under an omniscient God is just a guise. You might be wondering, though, why does it matter if we do or don't have free will? Well, then it makes answering questions such as, "Why does God allow evil and suffering on earth?" Now, you can't say it's because he wants to preserve free will. You could say, "it's part of his magnificent plan," but did his plan have to include the torturing of Jews in the Holocaust? His plan couldn't have went any other way? I don't buy it. Finally, to reinforce the idea that we have no free will, look at the concept of prophecy in the Bible. God knows exactly what will happen in the future, and tells these prophecies to the prophets. Life can only move in one direction, which is fulfilling these prophecies. Life can't stray away in any other sort of direction. Where is the free will in that? The future is clearly outlined, and exactly what will happen. An example of this would be with Judas (although I don't believe there are any prophecies in the OT talking about the death of Christ for our sins, but that is a separate discussion). Jesus was meant to die, and to be killed at the hands of Judas. Judas literally had no free will. You could say that Judas could've chosen to not kill Christ, and that would be his free will. However, then someone else would have to kill Christ. Christ, coming on Earth, knew that he would be killed. There is literally no reality in which people could've freely chosen to not kill him. Someone's free will would be violated, and they would be forced to kill Christ. We can also see in the OT how God does stuff like hardening Pharaoh's heart (to make him unwilling to release the Jews from Egypt), and interfering with evil (like in the Great Flood), clearly showing God as not someone who is afraid to interfere with free will. Once again, this leads to the question: "Why does God allow so much unnecessary pain and suffering on Earth?"

*God changes his mind and regrets his actions: For an omniscient God who knows the future, how can he regret his actions, and change his mind? Is he not perfect? Does he not know the future? Yet with stories like the flood, it's obvious that God regrets creating humanity, even though he knew what would happen? Also, Moses literally convinces God to change his mind in Exodus 32:11-14. Finally, in 1 Samuel 15, God has Saul go into a kingdom and slaughter pretty much everything. Saul doesn't execute the king and the animals, and God, I kid you not, regrets his decision. He regrets having Saul go out and complete this task, even though beforehand, he knew Saul would fail! How does this make sense?

*The problem of evil: I'd rather live in a world without free will and there being no evil. Furthermore, we know that God can create worlds without evil and essences of free will. For example, Heaven. There is no evil there, however, we can assume some level of free will does exist (since Satan rebelled). Why couldn't God just have us automatically sent to Heaven, and those who don't want it can just leave? At the same time, as I'm writing this, I wonder to myself, "Is there free will in heaven?" Can we cause evil in heaven, out of our own free will, even though heaven is supposed to be a place only of goodness? I guess we can't know, but still, God could've easily created a world with only good in it. God could've also restarted the Garden of Eden, a perfect world with no evil, and just have wiped out Adam and Eve. Creating humans this time without the possibility of them doing evil. Finally, in Isaiah, God admits to creating evil himself.

*Our life here on Earth: Why do we need to be here on Earth? Why can't we just all go to heaven automatically? I would propose, therefore, that it's much more likely that there is no life after death. It makes no sense to have us here on earth, living. What for? A test to see who gets to go to heaven, and who gets to go to Hell? Seems like a pretty crude test, especially considering the fact that God already knows in advance who will go to heaven/hell before that person is even born.

Many people, even those committed to faith in the scriptures, will say that the stories in Genesis are mythological without any evidence that the people or places described existed, or present arguments that do not correlate well with the scriptures or scientific evidence. I will attempt to bring my understanding of historical events described by science and anthropology, and how they correlate to the scriptures concluding on my interpretation of where Ur Kasdim is.

4.2ky event - This was a severe climatic event that affected the entire world, thought to be a result of weakening ocean currents changing rainfall and temperatures starting in 2200BC. It is believed to have lasted 100 years, although the affect on human populations lasted up to 300 years. It caused some areas of the world to became dry, arid, and drought affected (Mesopotamia, Indus Valley), whilst others experienced significant flooding and famine (Egypt, China). It resulted in the movement of peoples living in the Middle East who were effectively climate refugees, from an east to west direction seeking better conditions, ultimately resulting in peoples both leaving from and coming into the Indus Valley area by the year 1900BC (reference link below).

Scripture correlation - Reading Genesis 10:25 as follows "To ‘Ever were born two sons. One was given the name Peleg [division], because during his lifetime the earth was divided. His brother’s name was Yoktan." The date of the 4.2ky event in history coincides very closely to the birth of Peleg, as does its potential duration given Peleg lived 239 years, in addition to the description of the earth being divided into wet and dry areas.

I want to make the point that, as described above, the potential movement of Abraham's forefathers starting with Peleg towards the eventual destination Ur Kasdim was not out of intent, but necessity given the changes in the environment they were experiencing.

Ur Kasdim - We know that time period from Peleg to Nahor I occurs close to 200 years, suggesting the patriarchs of Abraham could have travelled a significant distance if starting in the Levant, through Mesopotamia, and ending at the Western Himalayas/Indus Valley Civilisation. The name Ur Kasdim could therefore signify this journey by being a collective of Sumerian, Sanskrit, and Hebrew together.

Ur, the Sumerian word for "land" or "place of", Khas, Sanskrit referring to the Caucaus mountain, Khas or Khasas tribe, and suffix -im in Hebrew completing the plural to peoples.

Ur Kasdim could therefore mean "Land of the Khas people", located in north west India near the Western Himalayas, and not Mesopotamia as has been generally accepted.

Feedback appreciated, and will present more when ready including how this would then relate to Haran/Harran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2-kiloyear_event

​

​

Hi, I'm u/WeighTheEvidence2, a non-trinitarian monotheist, and my thesis for this post is:

THE FINE TUNING ARGUMENT DOESN'T DEBUNK ITSELF

Let's weigh the evidence

° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °

On my previous post about the watchmaker / fine tuning / intelligent design argument, I asked for refutations. This comment from u/Resident1567899 was one of many.

^(By the way I just learned that Resident1567899 makes some great posts about Palestine/Israel so make sure to check them out.)

u/Resident1567899:

The FTA debunks itself. If life can only exist under such a small percentage of chance, then god is not omnipotent/All-Powerful because god's power to create is restricted (because other than this tiny percentage, life can't exist). If god is omnipotent and god's power to create is unrestricted, then life would be abundant because god can create life under any circumstance i.e. he isn't restricted. (which is the conflict with the FTA's restriction for life's existence)

If god chose to restrict his power to create but actually can create life under other circumstances, then the FTA's restricted parameters for life are false, for life CAN actually exist under other conditions, refuting the argument itself. It would also mean either god doesn't want to be found (divine hiddenness) or is evil and indifference to life (POE) which would mean god can't be omnibenevolent/All-Good. Either way, the FTA faces multiple problems.

I replied to that comment with this comment saying the following:

That seems to be a strawman, since the thesis mentions nothing about omnipotence or omnibenevolence. The thesis could be talking about any designer, maybe a civilization of advanced aliens.

And by the way, the thesis of that post was "THE COMPLEXITY OF THE UNIVERSE IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS A 'WATCHMAKER'"

^(By the way, please don't use abbreviations such as 'FTA' or 'POE,' it confuses some newcomers who aren't familiar enough with these arguments to work them out.)

I'm going to document the rest of the comment chain here.

u/Resident1567899:

It's to show believing in the FTA for theists (like you) either self-refutes your own beliefs or incurs significant metaphysical and religious concessions.

But if you want to argue for a deist god or a group of aliens, then up to you but I still don't think it works.

In fact, the opposite can be equally true. If the chance's of life existence were so small, wouldn't it be the result of random chance rather than a designer? Afterall, the chances of someone getting a pole stuck in their brain is extremely small (but has happened) yet no one believes it's the result of someone intentionally wanting to get stuck but rather, an unfortunate random chance of misfortune. Just think about things that have a small percentage of chance happening, getting hit 7 times by lightning, giving birth to quintuplets or dying because an eagle dropped a tortoise on your head.

The chances of anyone of these events happening is so miniscule, yet no one chalks it up to intentional design when it happens. Everyone just assumes it was because of that pesky 1-in-a-million random chance of happening and being unlucky.

So why can't the same be with life? Just an unfortunate 1-in-a-million unlucky accident?

u/WeighTheEvidence2:

Because in my opinion life as we know it is a series of coincidences, not just one. There was a lot of things that had to be set in place in order for life to exist, as I've already mentioned in the post. Even simple things like the sun and moon being coincidentally the same size is one of those coincidences.

Like that nurse that killed all those babies in the hospital. Sure one baby dying under her care was an unfortunate accident, but when there's another and another and another, the evidence stacks up against her.

To call intelligent life a one time accident seems incredibly oversimplified and reductionist to me.

I expand more on this idea in my monkey typewriter post.

^(Before commenting please make sure your argument hasn't already been commented, I am currently (April 2nd 2024) trying to address everyone.)

Thanks for reading, I've been u/WeighTheEvidence2. If you're truthful, may God bless you and lead you to the truth, and vice versa.

^(Please consider reading my other posts which can be found in my post index which is pinned on my profile (just click my name) and share my posts to those you think would be interested.)

^(My DMs are always open by the way, don't be afraid to ask any questions or request a post. If you haven't already, make a reddit account and leave your thoughts, it's easy.)

**SPOILER ADDED OUT OF RESPECT**

I will attempt to structure my argument to show why I come to this conclusion. I understand Leviticus provides an opposing statement but I will attempt nevertheless. This is not an attempt to disparage or disrespect Sarai, Abraham, or any religion, so please forgive me if I do.

Textual correlation is supportive - Here I present that the wording of the relevant scripture can be interpreted to show Sarai could have been Haran's wife first and Abram's second.

Genesis 11:28-30 "Haran died before his father Terach in the land where he was born, in Ur of the Kasdim. Then Avram and Nachor took wives for themselves. The name of Avram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nachor’s wife was Milkah the daughter of Haran. He was the father of Milkah and of Yiskah. Sarai was barren — she had no child."

I believe the text is purposeful to state that she was barren because she had past the age of motherhood, and therefore could not have a child to Abram, not to say she had no children. In addition, I believe the reason Sarai laughs is because she understands exactly what being pregnant is like and relations is like, also meaning Abram never did so because she could not conceive. Genesis 18:12 "So Sarah laughed to herself, thinking, “I am old, and so is my lord; am I to have pleasure again?”, which, if it has been translated accurately explains itself.

The question of why Abram would take Sarai, an otherwise unknown person as a wife, over Iscah his neice as his brother Nahor did with Milcah could then be answered, particularly considering the cultural difference of Ur Kasdim (see below).

Marrying a paternal sister was not commanded - Although it was practiced in cultures around the world, such as Egypt to keep royal bloodlines "pure", it was not described as a norm in Genesis, even if interpreted as such by those who consider Adam and Eve to be the only humans on Earth. The story of Lot and his daughters is also portrayed negatively, lending to the view that incest with the scriptures was not an act to be encouraged.

Therefore, when Abraham says in Genesis 20:12 "But she actually is also my sister, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother, and so she became my wife", he could be describing a different cultural norm that considers a daughter-in-law becomes a daughter should the son of the father she was married to die, which also allowed a brother to then marry. The irony is not lost on me that he is also explaining this reference to the Pharoah.

Cultural differences of Ur Kasdim - The most direct quote that shows this is Genesis 29:25-26

"In the morning Ya‘akov saw that he was with Le’ah, and he said to Lavan, “What kind of thing is this that you’ve done to me? Didn’t I work for you for Rachel? Why have you deceived me?” Lavan answered, “In our place that isn’t how it’s done, to give the younger daughter before the firstborn".

The significance of having different rules and respect regarding daughters and marriage is evident here, and could be a reference that Sarai, being Terah's elder daughter, was to be married first, leaving Iscah out. Some readings say Iscah is Sarai also, and in a sense she is because if Sarai had died then Iscah would have been Abram's wife.

In Genesis 24:55 when responding to the Abraham's servant who wished to leave with Rebecca states

"Her brother and mother said, “Let the girl stay with us a few days, at least ten. After that, she will go.” He answered them, “Don’t delay me, since Adonai has made my trip successful, but let me go back to my master.” They said, “We will call the girl and see what she says.” They called Rivkah and asked her, “Will you go with this man?” and she replied, “I will.”

The importance here placed on the decision making and autonomy for a daughter shows a level of respect I interpret as being different and unexpected in the verses.

Conclusion - My main concern leading to this was Abram marrying a paternal sister, and how this portrays an incestuous coupling. Although there is no specific texts to state that Sarai would become a daughter to Terah on Haran's passing, I believe there is enough to show that she was treated as one, with the importance of the matriarch becoming evident. Genesis 24:60 "They blessed Rivkah with these words: “Our sister, may you be the mother of millions, and may your descendants possess the cities of those who hate them.”

I believe this shows Abraham loved and respected Sarai very much and makes her more special as a matriarch, even when Leviticus states otherwise.

The concept of subjective awareness appears incoherent, and here are the reasons:

Imagine a time before you existed there were no sensations, emotions, or self-awareness. Then, suddenly, you began to experience life. This transition from non-existence to a state filled with thoughts and feelings is what we call consciousness. It's as though you've woke up from a deep sleep, with no recollection of your dream.

While science can explain the biological mechanisms that allow us to think and feel, it doesn't fully explain why you, specifically, are the one undergoing these experiences. Given the boundless possibilities for other beings to exist, the fact that you're the one here now, living this life, seems to defy the odds of a simple random selection. It's more like an infinite wheel of fortune that spins through time and space, ultimately stopping on your slice of existence.

This wheel would be linked to time because your emergence into consciousness coincided with time's progression. Prior to your existence, there was nothing, and considering the infinite array of potential conscious beings, the wheel would perpetually spin. This would suggests that your arrival as a conscious entity wasn't a matter of chance but was somehow destined.

But that's only applies if we really think our own unique awareness is a real thing.

Take, for example, a robot designed to simulate consciousness. Despite its advanced programming, it remains a mere machine, devoid of genuine consciousness. It operates on electricity, and that electricity, along with the materials constituting the robot, essentially represents the universe manifesting in a specific form. If we were to create a multitude of such robots, each may perceive itself as unique, yet all would be manifestations of the same underlying reality the universe experiencing itself through various perspectives.

This interconnectedness suggests that if all these robots ceased to exist and a new one was created, it would be a continuation of the same universal consciousness, simply experiencing existence through a new vessel. The reason a robot or a human cannot simultaneously experience the consciousness of others would be due to the limitations imposed by its physical form.

If the universe could emerge from nothingness, and given infinite time, the occurrence of something once implies that it could happen again. Every living thing traces its origins back to a single-celled organism, which itself emerged from a singular event in time, born from nothing. In an infinite timeline, if something can happen, it inevitably will. The periods when you don't exist are inconsequential because you're not there to experience them. From your perspective, you simply cease to exist and then, conceivably, start anew.

I'm sure nobody needs a refresher on the things certain extremists are willing to do on the basis of their religion and their God. In the last few decades people have flown planes into skyscrapers, beheaded people, thrown them from buildings, stoned them, disfigured women with acid, banned them from education and essentially, public life, committed mass murders over cartoons, and so on... If we want to take all of history and all the world into consideration, religious grounds have been the reasons for stoning, witch-burning, torture, slavery, colonization, genocide and all manner of other atrocities for millennia. What is today "extreme" has often been God-given law.

Now of course, what groups are extremists and what actions are extreme can be extensively debated - many would take issue even with my given examples - but I don't actually want to get into that. Because there's a certain school of thought - well-illustrated for example in this interview with William Lane Craig - that says anything God commands is moral - any and all possible quibbles we humans might have are immaterial, even if it means flooding the world, turning your wife to salt, or destroying your whole life and family and leaving you destitute and diseased in its ruins because the Devil dared him to. Divine command theory is one term for this (and adherents of divine command theory include the likes of Augustine and John Calvin - certainly not uninfluential figures) but really, this premise is taken for granted to some extent by a great deal of religion, and certainly by the Abrahamic ones. The Ten Commandments are morally right because God gave them. Adam and Eve's disobedience is wrong because God said so. He cannot be wrong. Likewise, following what he tells you to do cannot be wrong.

Perhaps you can see the problem. What we call "extremists" seem to just be people willing to take this concept - that God is the ground of good - as literally as William Lane Craig argues we should. Why, if God is good, should we find it surprising, shocking or at all wrong that someone would want to stone people, when the Old Testament tells us to do just that? According to divine command theory, it is in fact immoral on the part of the entire "civilized world" not to.

Two objections are obvious: some will say these extremists are not following the real God, and some will say they are not really being commanded, they're just doing what they want to do anyway for their own ends, with no divine will involved.

These objections seem remarkably weak in the face of the evidence that many extremists are intensely devout (am I to believe the Ayatollah Khomeini, an Islamic scholar his entire life, was not as sincerely religious as any Pope? That so many people are willing to kill themselves for these beliefs, but don't really believe them?), that their actions are often consistent with their holy texts (which, to my atheist eyes, frequently feature atrocities being committed or commanded by God, thus placing them somewhere within the bounds of the moral; the Canaanite slaughter is just one such), and of course, the fact that we simply cannot know the workings or the true natures of one another's minds.

More to the point, there seems to be no way, certainly not any all people would agree with, of determining which is the true God or which are true commands. To my eyes, there is no such thing to be found. Others would argue fervently for their particular faith - though without, it seems to me, having any proof one way or another. So, if the perpetrators of 9/11 told me they were commanded by God to do it, how am I to know they are wrong or lying, any more than I can know this about anyone who does anything on religious grounds? God works in mysterious ways, we are often told; sometimes a slaughter is a necessity to avoid some greater evil.

In summary: I certainly am not making any attempt to argue these sorts of actions are good, or are commanded by God. I am an atheist. I know of no God; it seems to me all such commands are the commands of men placed in the mouth of a God they propped up. But it is more than clear that there are multitudes, many billions, of people who would disagree. Many of them would tell me God does speak to people and does act. Many of them would also find no contradiction in saying both that we only know what is moral because God has told us, and that those who act on what they believe God has told them to do - to fight a jihad, for instance - are wrong. This simply does not make sense to me. It seems the most fundamental rule of many people's faith is swept aside when the kinds of things it commands are actually done, and they are swift to adopt some standard of morality other than God's.

P1: People have modeled reality, consciously or unconsciously, and use it every day to make predictions. How and when and where the sun rises, for example.

P2: A sufficiently knowledgeable being (such as, say, an omniscient one) would know every fact about reality as it is today (such as the position and composition of every molecule, their energy, their velocity and so on).

P3: With sufficient knowledge of every fact involved in a situation, you can predict anything with 100% certainty. (If you know exactly which sperm f some future-dad is going to touch which egg of future-mom, and the knowledge of how every molecule is going to recombine within the gestational sac, you can predict with 100% certainty the genetic disposition of the child, for example. We do this in IVF labs every day to avoid genetic diseases, this is definitely not beyond the divine. We cannot possibly conceive of the things an infinitely powerful and intelligent being can model, and I'm willing to argue that divinity should be able to predict the quantum.)

P4: If you can predict anything with 100% certainty, you can make statements about the future that are 100% true. (If our knowledge is true, and we've taken into account every possible factor, it logically follows that we will know for certainty the outcome of a situation. An easy example would be for you to predict you'll put your hand on your keyboard, and then do so - not quite 100%, but close enough as to be immaterial.)

P5: If you can make statements about the future that are 100% true, then you know what will happen in the future.

P6: If you know what will happen in the future, then you know the future.

C: An omniscient (or, to a lesser extent, a sufficiently knowledgeable) divine being must either know or be capable of knowing the future.

I see people say that an omniscient being would not know anything of the future, and I cannot possibly imagine how that could be true. Even I can make predictions, divinity would surely blow me out of the water in this respect. And if they can predict everything my supposedly free-will-having butt will make, do I really? (I'd like to think I do, but that I'm just a basic boy who's easily predicted.)

Let me give some of the "miracles" that I will be discussing in this post.

• The feeding of the 5000.
• The feeding of the 4000.
• The resurrected saints of Matthew 27:52.

All of these accounts claim several things. That, one, thousands of people witnessed them, and 2, they very clearly were observed and talked about. For example, Matthew tells us that “great crowds” from the Decapolis and from beyond the Jordan follow the Christ, along with many citizens from Jerusalem and Judea (4:24–25). The Decapolis is a group of about ten cities included within the Roman province of Syria in Jesus' day.

​

John 6:2, alongside Matthew 4:24-25 (*this verse says his was famous all throughout Syria); Matthew 8:1 etc., claims that several large crowds followed Jesus because he healed people. This "healing", although being disconnected from the chronology of the other gospels, occurred on numerous occasions (Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12, Luke 4:40, Luke 5:17-26,Mark 5:21-43, etc.). This means that thousands upon thousands of people witnessed these miracles. Along with this, the gospels claim that Jesus went to various geographical areas performing these miracles. Such areas include (but are not limited to):

• Bethsaida: Mark 8:22–26 includes the account of the healing of the "Blind man of Bethsaida".
• Cana: John 2:1–11 includes Marriage at Cana as the first miracle performed by Jesus.
• Nain: Luke 7:11-17 includes the first of the three instances in the canonical gospels where Jesus raises the dead.
• Bethesda: In John 5:1–18, the healing the paralytic at Bethesda episode takes place at the Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem.

Due to the sheer geographical scale over which Jesus performed miracles, alongside the alleged "fame all throughout Syria" amongst the other places where crowds followed him, its very clear that an oral tradition would have been widespread. Such an oral tradition would have been spread over several geographical areas, and as per the gospel accounts, would have reached high ranking members of society (E.g Nicodemus in John 3, or the Roman Centurion) & even illiterate commonpeople. These people should have written them down, particularly since a large influx of miracle reports would have caused national disturbance (e.g the Romans thinking Messiah claimants were guilty of sedition for wanting to usher in a "Kingdom of God") or even talked about it frequently.

​

Yet this didn't happen. At all. We have a complete silence from any contemporary writers in the 1st and 2nd centuries. Some may cite Celsus but he very clearly had access to the gospels, as did other individuals (e.g Lucian of Samosota), meaning that these are not evidence of contemporary accounts of the miracles, given they prove both an absence of oral tradition and written documentation of miracles (excluding the New Testament).

​

I think the most damaging claim is the rising saints in Jerusalem in Matthew 27:52. We should expect multiple independent confirmations of a literal occurrence. That Matthew asserts this as a factual occurrence in spite of absolutely 0 supporting evidence, whether non-Christian or Christian, is ridiculous.

​

To make this even worse for the gospels, here are a list of individuals who could have independently confirmed the existence of an oral tradition, embellished story, or written account of any of the aforementioned miracles:

• Justus of Tiberias (2nd half of 1st century CE), personal secretary of king Agrippa (Paul goes on trial to this Agrippa in Acts 25-26), wrote a history of the Jewish war, including events leading up to it
• Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE - 50 CE), prolific Jewish writer living in Alexandria, made pilgrimages to Jerusalem, comments on historical and contemporary affairs in Palestine, wrote about the Herods and Pontius Pilate
• Cassius Dio (c 155 CE-235 CE), wrote an extant history from the foundation of Rome to his own time, discusses affairs in Palestine at the time of Jesus
• Pliny the Elder (died 79 CE), wrote a monumental 31 volumes of history from around 31 CE to at least beyond the reign of Nero
• Pamphila of Epidaurus (1st century CE), wrote 31 volumes (!) of Historical Notes up to c. 60 CE
• Seneca the Elder (54 BCE - 39 CE), wrote a history of Rome from 1st century BCE to c. 30s CE
• Marcus Servilius Nonianus (2 BCE - 59 CE), wrote a history up to at least 41 CE
• Aufidius Bassus (died c. 60 CE), wrote a history up to at least 31 CE
• Fabius Rusticus (1st century CE), wrote a history during Nero’s reign up to his own time
• Aulus Claudius Charax (2nd century CE), wrote a history from mythical past to his own time
• Publius Herrennius Dexippus (c. 210-273 CE), wrote a history from mythical past to his own time
• Gaius Asinius Quadratus (c. 248 CE), wrote a history from the foundation of Rome to his own time
• Julia Agrippina (15-59 CE), mother of Nero, sister of Caligula, wife of Claudius, wrote memoirs
• Seneca the Younger (4 BC-65 CE), wrote an extant treatise On Superstition around 40-62 CE criticizing a large number of religious cults in the Roman empire
• Emperors Titus and Vespasian, wrote commentaries on their Jewish war
• Juvenal (early second century CE), wrote satirical poetry ridiculing religious sects
• Lucillius, (wrote satirical poetry during the reign of Nero, ridiculed religious sects
• Aulus Persius Flaccus, wrote satirical prose during the reign of Nero
• Maximus of Tyre (mid-second century CE), wrota a collection of speeches, Jesus supposedly visited Tyre
• Numerous paradoxographies (collections of fantastical, inexplicable stories) including Callimachus, Philostephanus, Antigonus of Caristus, Archelaus of Egypt, Myrsilus of Methyma, Phlegon, Isigonus, Aelian
• Numerous florilegia (collections of stories about life, religion and philosophy) including Moralia by Plutarch, Attic Nights by Aulus Gellius, Florida by Apuleius, Dinnersages by Athenaeus

The contemporary silence is deafening. Either the accounts were erased (which we have no evidence for), God gave people divine amnesia (which is a problematic claim for the Christian deity), or they simply did not occur. To make it even worse, Christians commonly assert that the gospels are divinely inspired, and that they are accurate accounts of Jesus' life. Why should we take ANY of these gospels seriously in light of the obvious falsehood in them?

​

There are for starters countless millions of humans across all continents sans Antarctica who will never interact with a believing Christian or be exposed to a Bible or Church. And those who are followers of Christ and are walking in His path are still apt to have profound disagreements over the extent to which Christian values belong in society and governance and the extent to which they don't. Moreover, it is always possible that those who aren't Saved will get opportunities to become Saved in the afterlife; nobody fundamentally knows where we go and what we are asked and what tests we take in any form of afterlife. And so Christians should go through life with the understanding that they only know if they are Saved.

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).

Acts 4:32 - Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33 With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35 They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

If Christians are all about following what the early church did, why is this one area that they consistently avoid? It appears a communal aspect (just short of communism) was alive and well in the early church, endorsed and managed by the apostles.

If the goal is to follow scripture and do as the early believers did, then modern believers should be selling their property and sharing it communally, with the richer believers providing for the entire group. This is shown here, but also in Acts 5, when Ananias & Saphira chose to lie about how much they earned and gave to Peter for the group:

Acts 5:1 - Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

So, not only was it expected, but if you thought you could keep some of the profits and lie about it, you would die. Serious business, for sure!

I think it's a common retort that many people are turning away from religions like Christianity because of the moral hypocrisy of its followers but tbh, I think alot of people on both sides (but moreso the religious adherents for obv reasons) seem to forget that bad arguments play a significant role if not, moreso.

Just imagine yourself asking a difficult religious question but being given answers that are vague or self-contradictory. I could see why one would be turned off by the religion. But imho, it's not just a religious thing. Alot of our society simply doesn't have the time for honest philosophical discourse and we prefer to be intellectually lazy and ride on catch slogans. There's a reason why signs like this are popular. Or this.

Maybe people also see religion as a form of culture too? I'm sure there's alot of practices/beliefs that are pretty illogical in cultures like American, Chinese etc. But to outright abandon them seems very disheartening.

We dont really know what is the "default" state of the universe, and that's why all these attempts to prove/disprove god through universe is just speculation, from both sides. And thats basically all the argumentation here: we dont know what is the "default" state of the universe -> thus cant really support any claim about god's existence using arguments that involve universe, creation, existence.

Hi, I'm u/WeighTheEvidence2, a non-trinitarian monotheist, and my thesis for this post is:

THE COMPLEXITY OF THE UNIVERSE IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS A 'WATCHMAKER'

Let's weigh the evidence

° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °

^([ EDIT 1 is signified by a single square bracket)

^([ [ EDIT 2 is signified by double square brackets)

This is just the same old watchmaker / intelligent design / fine tuning argument.

The main reason I am posting this is to try to attract refutations in order to refute those refutations, so by all means refute this argument and I'll try to get back to you.

In the meantime, I will try to add something fresh to this argument that not many of us think about, and that is our perspective of the universe from Earth.

Institute of Physics - Extraordinary behaviour of the Moon:

Quote

The fact that solar eclipses are as dramatic as they are raises an important question. Why does the Moon almost perfectly cover the Sun during an eclipse? For the Sun to be fully blocked by the Moon, it needs to look like it is roughly the same size as the Moon when viewed from Earth. As it happens, even though the Moon is 400 times smaller than the Sun, it's also about 400 times closer to Earth than the Sun is. This means that from Earth, the Moon and Sun appear to be roughly the same size in the sky. It is a complete coincidence.

Endquote 

I think about this coincidence a lot actually. Not many people do. We're so used to seeing the Sun and moon that we don't stop to think 'Wow, there's two giant balls floating in the sky, one made of what looks like fire and one made of what looks like luminous icy rock, and they've been up there for, like, forever, and they're like the same size as eachother, and they're beautiful!'

The reason such an event like an eclipse can even happen is due to all the planets (and our moon) orbiting around the Sun on nearly the same plane.

But why? Well it seems a lot of other people also had this question because it was one of the suggestions on google when I typed 'why are all the planets.'

National Radio Astronomy Observatory - Why Do the Planets Orbit in a Plane Parallel to the Spin Axis of the Sun?:

Quote

Why do the planets all orbit the Sun in (nearly) the same plane?

This “co-planar” orbital motion is due to the fact that during the formation of the Solar System from a cloud of collapsing gas and dust the Sun and planets settled into a disk structure. This disk structure is the result of the conservation of angular momentum which results when a spinning cloud of gas and dust collapses, and represents a balance point between gravitational collapse and the outward force due the spin of the disk (called centrifugal force). Now, this disk could have been in any orientation, but the most likely configuration would have the residual spin of the disk, including the planets, aligned with the residual orbital spin of the Sun. This is why the spin axis of the Sun is parallel to the spin axis of the rest of the solar system.

Endquote

It sounds all well and good when you explain it as if the planets are just supposed to all orbit around the Sun in complete harmony. But I'm telling you that they're actually not supposed to do that.

Why?

In this TED-Ed video, Newton's three-body problem explained, we learn about two researchers in 2009 that ran simulations of our solar system and changed the distance between Mercury and the Sun... by less than 1mm.

[ [ [ [ I'm very sorry. I said "simulations" instead of "numerical simulations."

In some results Mercury committed suicide via Sun, in some it caused grievous bodily harm to Venus, and in some it completely destabilized the entire Solar system.

Granted these results were after 5 billion years (if i understand the video correctly) but it highlights a significant problem, dubbed "the n-body problem," or "the three-body problem" which the video is titled after.

[ [ [ And also, those catastrophic events were part of 1% of calculations, but that's a very high percentage when we're talking the fate of our entire cosmic history. I'm sure if I offered you to spin a wheel with a 99% chance of winning $10 and 1% chance of dying, you wouldn't spin the wheel.

[ [ [ ...Well, you might, but, y'know, you get my point.

When trying to research the three body problem, you'll find many videos like the one above and many resources confusing you in an attempt to divert you from what I personally have deduced to be the simple explanation.

And that simple explanation of the three body problem (correct me if I'm wrong) is that simulating the gravitational orbits of two bodies has been done predictably, but simulating three or more bodies seems to be impossible. And the more bodies you include, the more chaotic the simulation becomes.

[ [ [ [ Not numerical simulations like in the above video, I mean that running computer simulations seem to be impossible with three or more bodies.

Needless to say, there are more than two bodies in our Solar system.

Science.NASA.gov - Moons of Our Solar System:

Quote

According to the NASA/JPL Solar System Dynamics team, the current tally of moons orbiting planets in our solar system is 293: One moon for Earth; two for Mars; 95 at Jupiter; 146 at Saturn; 28 at Uranus; 16 at Neptune; and five for dwarf planet Pluto.

Astronomers also have documented more than 470 satellites, or moons, orbiting smaller objects, such as asteroids, dwarf planets, or Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) beyond the orbit of Neptune. These moons are called small-body satellites

Endquote

We can't simulate gravitational orbits because what we understand to be gravity is not sufficient enough to explain the stability of gravitational orbits such as the many orbits involved within the Solar system.

We can search for simulations, and we'll find videos with high school teachers 'simulating' gravity with their little trampoline thing, or we'll get the exact same thing as that but with glow in the dark marbles.

What is the explanation for this? How do planets, moons, and even stars in a galactical orbit for that matter stay in orbit? You might have heard about it before.

NASA Space Place - What is Dark Matter?

Quote

There must be something else, something we can’t see, that adds gravity and acts like a glue so that the galaxies can spin so fast without flying apart. That something is dark matter.

Endquote

And the only way they discovered this mysterious matter is because they couldn't explain mathematically how orbits work, so they invented a solution. They literally created a new type of matter and energy just because they couldn't admit that they don't know how orbits work.

Thanks for reading, I've been u/WeighTheEvidence2. If you're truthful, may God bless you and lead you to the truth, and vice versa.

By the way, your refutation doesn't have to be specifically against this post, it can be against the watchmaker argument in general.

^(Please consider reading my other posts which can be found in my post index which is pinned on my profile (just click my name) and share my posts to those you think would be interested.)

^(My DMs are always open by the way, don't be afraid to ask any questions or request a post. If you haven't already, make a reddit account and leave your thoughts, it's easy.)

[ I thought the logical conclusions of the evidences provided were straight forward. Apparently they're not for some atheists.

[ When there is a series of unlikely coincidences, it becomes evident that there might be a driving force behind those events. The apparent sizes of the sun and moon, the stability of our Solar system despite there being hundreds of celestial bodies, and the fact that scientists affirm the existence of a mysterious force which they have dubbed "dark matter" are the three coincidences which I pointed to in this post.

[ I mean, we could even go as far as to say that the mysterious force called "dark matter" is just what scientists call the designer's helping hand.

[ This argument has been called "the god of the gaps" by some. Those people would have to then disbelieve in dark matter and dark energy, since thise concepts also are simply just parts of a theory developed based on the evidences presented to us.

[ [ Some have said that dark matter and dark energy aren't required for calculations pertaining to the gravitational orbits in our Solar system.

[ [ While (1) it's not actually necessary to construct my argument that dark matter needs to be prevalent specifically in our Solar system, and (2) the existence of the theory of dark matter at all supports my argument that a mysterious force exists according to scientists - I have found some resistance to this refutation by googling "does dark matter affect the solar system."

[ [ EarthSky.org - Can we measure dark matter in our solar system?:

[ [ Quote

Dark matter pervades our solar system

. . .

. . . Via studies of its pull, astronomers have collected overwhelming indirect evidence suggesting dark matter pervades our universe. And so our solar system – our family of planets orbiting the sun – must contain dark matter, too.

. . .

Solar system is half dark matter and half normal matter

. . . He found that in our solar system, about 45% of this force is from dark matter and 55% is from normal, so-called baryonic matter. This suggests a roughly half-and-half split between the mass of dark matter and normal matter in our sun’s family.

So half the solar system might be dark matter! Yet Belbruno said he was surprised the percentage of dark matter in our solar system wasn’t higher. . .

[ [ Endquote

New evidence has increasingly pointed to the fact we may be living in a simulated universe; quantized particles, uncertainty principle, light speed limit… If so, is this not just a few steps away from god as if we are simulated by other humans, they should be too, to avoid an infinite regress, you have to arrive at an immaterial mind outside of time, god.

Hi, I'm u/WeighTheEvidence2, a non-trinitarian monotheist, and my thesis for this post is:

THE QUR'AN WAS REVEALED IN MULTIPLE RECITATIONS - AND - THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION BETWEEN HAFS QUR'AN 98:6 AND WARSH QUR'AN 98:6

Let's weigh the evidence

° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °

u/baldpenguinn recently made a post on r/DebateReligion titled "Differences in Quran Manuscripts."

I would first like to push back on their opening statement:

Quote

Most of the Muslims claim Quran is "word for word", "letter for letter" the same from 1400 years ago, hoewever we know this is not true.

Endquote 

While I do acknowledge that (1) many muslims affirm that the Qur'an has not been changed from 1400 years ago and (2) those muslims do this without knowing about the different recitations of the Qur'an - they're still technically not wrong, although slightly ignorant.

This is because the Qur'an was revealed in multiple recitations from the very beginning, as seen in several authentic hadith such as below.

Sunan al-Tirmidhī 2944 (Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Tirmidhi):

Quote

. . .

. . . Gabriel said, “O Muhammad, the Quran has been revealed in seven readings.”

Endquote

^(Some have said that the number "seven" is to be interpreted metaphorically as arabs often used 7, 70, 700 as rough 'round' numbers so it would be more or less seven different recitations.)

And all of the different recitations have been thoroughly studied and documented and memorized.

Now onto the relevant part of u/baldpenguinn's post:

Quote

Hafs 98:6

Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.

Warsh 98:6

Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of the innocent.

Problem here is clear:

Are Christians the worst creatures, or are we innocent?

What are innocent Christians, Jews, and polytheists doing in hell?

Endquote

u/salamacast made a comment on this post refuting the argument, correctly noting that the translation for the warsh is actually incorrect. The translation should be the same as the Hafs translation.

Below is the Bridges translation of this verse.

Bridges Translation, Qur'an 98:6:

Quote

[6] Indeed, those who have denied among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists are in the fire of Hell, abiding therein; those are the worst of all beings.

Endquote 

This translation has notes highlighting the different recitations of the verses, and I can confirm that there are no notes for this verse, meaning the translation for both the Hafs and Warsh versions (and all other versions) are the same according to this translation.

^(I would also like to note that the incorrect post as of writing has 14 upvotes, whereas the correct, and very concise, refutation has only 2.)

Thanks for reading, I've been u/WeighTheEvidence2. If you're truthful, may God bless you and lead you to the truth, and vice versa.

^(Please consider reading my other posts which can be found in my post index which is pinned on my profile (just click my name) and share my posts to those you think would be interested.)

^(My DMs are always open by the way, don't be afraid to ask any questions or request a post. If you haven't already, make a reddit account and leave your thoughts, it's easy.)

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

Peace be upon you all :)

I begin with a short disclaimer:

^(I am not here to proselytize my religion or to convince people to convert to it, because God clearly says in the Quran that both Jews and Christians can indeed attain Salvation if they believe in God, the Last Day and do good works:)

^("Surely those who believed, those who became Jewish, the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believed in God and the Last Day and did good, they shall have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve." (Chapter 2, verse 62, "al-Qur'an" - the Recital))

^(I understand that traditionalists often propagate Islam in a "convert or face damnation" manner, but this doesn't align with the teachings of the Qur'an. Please don't associate me with them. I call for unity, that we all unite under the worship of the One and Only God of Abraham, that we should understand that we have this in common and that we should take no one as God other than this Deity, also known as) ^(YHWH) ^((the equivalent of ")^(al-Hayy)^(" in the Quran), which is a Name rooted in ")^(Hayah)^(" in Hebrew. We worship the exact same God! We're cousins in other words.)

^(While we may have differing views, discussing them meaningfully and respectfully is encouraged in all three religions. It's a means to move beyond the divisions fostered by our past scholars and work towards unity, understanding and a means to reach the ultimate truth in topics wherein we differ. My intent with these posts is not to discredit your religions or assert Islam as the sole path to salvation. Please understand this before you attack me or my religion in the comment section.)

Let's now focus on the topic at hand.

Introduction:

This series, titled "The Islamic Black Stone is Clearly in the Bible," consists of three parts. If you have not yet read the first two parts, it is essential to do so as they are necessary for a complete understanding of this one:

Part 1: The Islamic Stone in Mecca is Clearly in The Bible - It's Not "Stone Worship" - Biblical, Cartographic and Historical Proof!

Part 2: The Islamic Black Stone in The Bible P.2: Refuting ALL The Critics - Mecca is still in the Bible!

The Bible discusses the Kaaba, its stone, Mecca, Islam, and Prophet Muhammad. I aim to demonstrate this concisely, backed by evidence. My goal isn't conversion but to present factual content, including my theories supported by biblical, historical, and cartographic evidence. I challenge the misconception that Islam lacks foundation and instead highlight its deep biblical roots. Let's explore this together.

1. The Bible literally puts "Bakah" in "Mecca":

This is explicitly stated in this Biblical verse from the Old Testament:

Traditional translation:

"The region where they lived stretched from Mesha toward Sephar, in the eastern hill country."

(Deuteronomy 33:15)

The Masoretic verse with the diacritics:

Heb: וַיְהִ֥י מֽוֹשָׁבָ֖ם מִמֵּשָׁ֑א בֹּֽאֲכָ֥ה סְפָ֖רָה הַ֥ר הַקֶּֽדֶם:

Transliteration of the above:

"wayǝhî môšābām mimmēšāʾ bōʾăkâ sǝpārâ har haqqedem:"

The original Hebrew w/o the diacritics:

Heb: ויהי מושבם ממשא באכה ספרה הר הקדם:

Transliteration of the above:

"wyhy mwšbm mmša bakh sprh hr hqdm"

The accurate translation:

"Their settlement stretched from Mesha, Bakah, to Sepher, the mountain of the east."

- Mesha: Ancient name of Mecca.
- Bakah: A region inside of Mecca (aka Bakka, Bacca or Baca).
- Sepher: Zafar in Yemen (Wikipedia.org/wiki/Zafar,_Yemen)

Scholarly Biblical commentaries confirming that 'Mesha' actually is the location we call as 'Mecca' today:

________________________

• 1. Rav Saadia Gaon

Heb: "ומשא, תרגם רב סעדיה ז”ל מכא שהולכים הישמעאלים לחוג שם"

Translation:

“Rav Saadia Gaon understands the meaning of the word Mesha as what is known nowadays as Mecca, the city to which the Ishmaelites make their pilgrimage, the Hajj”

Source: Torat Chayim Chamisha Chumshe Torah Yerusalem

________________________

• 2. Rabbi Zacuth:

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:

"so that the sense is, according to this paraphrase, that the sons of Joktan had their dwelling from Mecca to Medina; and so R. Zacuth (s) says, Mesha in the Arabic tongue is called Mecca; and it is a point agreed upon by the Arabs that Mesha was one of the most ancient names of Mecca; they believe that all the mountainous part of the region producing frankincense went in the earliest times by the name of Sephar; from whence Golius concludes this tract to be the Mount Zephar of Moses, a strong presumption of the truth of which is that Dhafar, the same with the modern Arabs as the ancient Saphar, is the name of a town in Shihr, the only province in Arabia bearing frankincense on the coast of the Indian ocean (t)."

Source: Rabbi Zacuth in Juchasin, fol. 135. 2.

Link: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/genesis/10-30.htm

________________________

• 3. Barnes' Notes on the Bible commentary:

"The situation of Mesha is uncertain. But it is obviously the western boundary of the settlement, and may have been in the neighborhood of Mecca and Medina. Sephar is perhaps the Arabic Zaphari, called by the natives Isfor, a town on the south coast near Mirbat. It seems, however, to be, in the present passage, the "mount of the east" itself, a thuriferous range of hills, adjacent, it may be, to the seaport so-called. Gesenius and others fix upon Mesene, an island at the head of the Persian Gulf, as the Mesha of the text. But this island may have had no existence at the time of the Joctanite settlement. These boundaries include the greater part of the west and south coast of the peninsula, and are therefore sufficient to embrace the provinces of Hejaz (in part), Yemen, and Hadramaut, and afford space for the settlements of the thirteen sons of Joctan. The limits thus marked out determine that all these settlers, Ophir among the rest, were at first to be found in Arabia, how far soever they may have wandered from it afterward."

Source: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/genesis/10-30.htm

________________________

4. Johnson (1894 CE):

"Mecca (probably the anc. Makaraba of Ptolemy; possibly the Mesha of Gen. x. 30): chief city in the vilayet of Hedjaz, Arabia; in lat. 21° 30′ N. and lon. 40° 8 E.; 48 miles E. of Jeddah, its port on the Red Sea (see map of Persia and Arabia, ref. 7-C)."

Source: "Johnson's Universal Cyclopaedia" Volume 5, 1894 CE.

^(// Just a small note by me: ")^(Makaraba)^(" literally means ")^(The Lord's Mecca)^(" ()^(Maka) ^(=) ^(Mecca)^(,) ^(Rabba = The Lord's)^(.))

________________________

5. John Brown (1816 CE):

"The Arabs descended from Joktan, dwelt from Mesha, which is perhaps the same, as Muza or Mecca, on the east of the Red sea, to Sephar, a mount of the south-east of Arabia Felix, Gen. x. 25,-30. 1 Chron. i. 19,-23."

Source: "A Dictionary of the Holy Bible" Volume 2, p.40.

________________________

Does Bakah just mean "In Achae"?

The word I've transliterated as "Bakah" is "באכה." It literally has the letters "B-A-K-H." Google interprets it as if the "B" stands for the Hebrew word "-בְּ" (at, or in) and "אכה" stands for "Achae." In other words, it is supposedly just saying "In Achae" or "In Akah."

Achaea: perifereiakí enótita (regional unit) and historic region of Greece on the north coast of the Peloponnese (Modern Greek: Pelopónnisos), south of the Gulf of Corinth (Korinthiakós).

Achae is an ancient city in Greece, now known as Peloponnese. I am confident that its settlement did not extend all the way from Arabia to a region in Greece. There is no historical basis for such an absurd assertion; it is merely a desperate attempt to obscure the name "Bakah," which has always been associated with Mecca, as the verse clearly states. The verse mentions "Mecca" and then specifies its exact location as "Bakah." Similarly, it mentions "Sepher" and then specifies its exact location as "The mountain of the east." It does not refer to four places but rather two places specified with their respective regions.
The variation in spelling between this verse and Psalm 84 is likely due to slight changes over time. Both transliterations "Bakka" and "Bakah" essentially mean the same thing. Furthermore, the Hebrew "Bacca" is likely an Arabic loanword and can be spelled in multiple ways. There is no Hebrew word "Bakah," which is why Google has been programmed to interpret it as "In Achae."

2. Revisiting Psalm 84: Zion, Makah, Bacca, a blessed future teacher, Pilgrimage, and much more:

Let's revisit Psalm 84 now that we understand that the Biblical "Bacca" indeed is located in the city of Mecca. This calls for a very much deeper and careful observation every time Bacca is mentioned. Let's start with verse 5 of Psalm 84:

Verse 5: אשרי יושבי ביתך עוד יהללוך סלה:

Translation:

"Happy are those who dwell in Your house; again will they sing your praises aloud. Salah."

This verse mentions the House of God (i.e. the Bethel, a.k.a the Kaaba, God's House).

Regarding "Sing your praises aloud": The verb "הָלַל" is in its Pi'el form, which is often used in the context of praise, especially in liturgical or worship settings, it emphasizes the act of praising in a loud or exuberant manner. This form of the verb is about making an audible cry/shout while praying and worshiping. This is exactly what Muslims do in Mecca (and all around the world) while praying the daily prayers, we recite the praises of the Lord loudly, and we do it in "Salah."

Verse 6: אשרי אדם עוז לו־בך מסלות בלבבם:

Translation:

"Blessed is he who seeks refuge in You on Your Ladders within their hearts."

Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Definition on the word "מסלות" (Ladder):

Heb word: מְסִלָּה f. (from the root סָלַל)

(1) a way cast up, embanked, highway; hence a public way, Judges 20:31, 32 Judges 20:32; 1 Samuel 6:12; Isaiah 40:3. Applied to course of life, Proverbs 16:17; Psalms 84:6.

(2) a ladder, steps, i.q. סֻלָּס. 2 Chronicles 9:11.

Source: https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/4546.html?pn=511&l=a

Most have interpreted this to mean "pilgrimage," which is a valid interpretation, but I see "Ladders" being even more valid and specific because of Genesis 28, Jacob's Ladder, which also is located in Mecca (as I have proven already in part 1 & 2 of this series). This verse is directly connecting us to that incident by mentioning a word that can be directly defined as "Ladder."

In Genesis 28:12, Jacob dreams of a ladder positioned on the earth as he arrives at a place known as "Harran," its top reaching toward heaven, with angels of God ascending and descending upon it. Upon awakening, Jacob identifies the place as "none other than the House of God" and names it Bethel, which means "House of God" in Hebrew, and places a cornerstone there (which indeed corresponds to the Kaaba and the cornerstone that still exists within it to this day). In previous parts of this series, I have demonstrated that Zion, Bethel, Harran, and Paddan Aram all refer to the same location and region.
The city of "Harran" was undoubtedly situated in ancient times in the vicinity of what is now known as Mecca. This fact has been authentically documented and recorded by numerous prominent geographers and historians, predating the existence of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Please refer to Part 1, where I provide evidence from several notable ancient geographers, including Pomponius Mela (1st century CE), Pliny (1st century CE), and others, who place "Harran" in present-day Saudi Arabia.

The abundance of "coincidences" or rather, similarities, strongly suggests that this situation is more than a mere conflation. When we consider cartographic evidence predating the emergence of Islam, indicating that Harran was situated in Mecca, it provides compelling evidence that is difficult to refute. Any maps or historical texts asserting that Harran was located in Turkey and/or Syria are always post-Islam fabrications that emerged after the arrival of the Islamic prophet from Arabia's Harran.

My open challenge is this, please pay attention guys:

To challenge my assertions, it is essential to produce a historian or geographer from before the 6th century CE who placed Harran elsewhere, outside of Arabia, similar to what I have presented in these posts. Any information dating from after the 6th century could be viewed as potentially fabricated, implying the existence of alternative Harrans and leaving room for the interpretation that it may not specifically have to refer to the Arabian Harran.

Carefully re-read the above to fully understand my challenge here! I challenge this entire subreddit. I challenge the entire subreddit called r/AcademicBiblical and r/askbiblescholars as well! If anyone can bring only ONE SINGLE mention of any Harran that wasn't located in Arabia, from any Geography book, any history book or whatever else (but it has to be PRE-ISLAMIC!), then I will literally remove all posts about Harran, and I will delete my account here on Reddit and never be heard of or seen of again. Fair enough? I think this is more than fair from me.

Successfully doing so would refute all my assertions, yet no such evidence has been presented, nor is it likely to ever surface. Harran was undoubtedly a city in Arabia! We all know it, but many of us are just not ready to acknowledge it yet. One day in the future (hopefully), many of you will thank me for revealing this truth to you. I've done excruciating research regarding this and I know for a fact that what I am claiming here is the full and honest truth.

Verse 7: בְּעֵ֣מֶק הַ֖בָּכָא מַעְיָ֣ן יְשִׁית֑וּהוּ גַּם־בְּ֜רָכ֗וֹת יַעְטֶּ֥ה מוֹרֶֽה:

They've conjoined certain letters erroneously to hide what the verse is saying in actuality, which is why their translation of this verse is very awkward in English. This is how it's supposed to be:

Heb: בע מקה בכא מעין ישית והו גם־ברכות יעטה מורה

No letters were removed or added, but just conjoined accurately so they become coherent words (and names). You will understand why they did this when you read how it actually translates:

Translation:

"The Sovereign One of Makah, Bakah; He will establish a well [therein]; And will also enwrap a teacher in blessings."

Breakdown:

Heb word: בע = The Sovereign (of)
name: מקה = Makah
Name: בכא = Bakka
Heb word: מעין = well
Heb word: ישית = is the future tense form of the verb "לשית" (lashit), meaning "to set" or "to establish."
Heb words: והו גם = And he will also
Heb word: ברכות = Blessings
Heb word: יעטה = enwrap
Heb word: מורה = a teacher

- As for the first word "בע", it can be translated as "Sovereign of" or "Possessor of"

Hebrew dictionary:

Heb word: בָּעַל

(b. h.; √בע , v. בָּעָה, to enter into, take possession)

[in b. h. to be master, protect;]

Source: Jastrow, "בָּעַל" London, Luzac, 1903

It's an abbreviation of the actual word (See it listed as one of the Hebrew abbreviations in the wikipage called /List_of_Hebrew_abbreviations).

- Next we have the two names "Makah" and "Bakah"

Both names are right next to each other, (מקה בכא), leaving very little room room for any denial or doubt whatsoever.

- Next we have the word "מעין"

Defined as "well", as it is defined in a Classical Hebrew dictionary by Jastrow:

"spring, well. Keth. I, 10; a. fr.—[Frequ. עֵין in pr. n. pl., as ע׳ סוכר, ע׳ טב; v. respective determinants]."

Source: Jastrow, עַיִן, London, Luzac, 1903

Referring to the miracle well in Mecca, in the middle of the desert as it has been running for ages, the Zamzam well. A living miracle everyone can witness with their own eyes, to this very day.

- Next we have the word "עָטָה"

Which translates to "enwrap," as it is defined in a classical Hebrew dictionary by Larry Pierce:

"to cover, enwrap, wrap oneself, envelop oneself

(Qal)to wrap, envelop oneself

to cover (the beard in mourning)

mourner, one who covers (participle)

(Hiphil) to cover, enwrap, envelop"

Source: מקור: Open Scriptures on GitHub

Creator: יוצר: Based on the work of Larry Pierce at the Online Bible

Which is exactly how God addresses prophet Muhammad in chapter 73 of the Quran, a chapter titled "The Enwrapped one":

"O you enwrapped,

Arise all night, except for a little.

Half of it or reduce from it a little,

Or increase upon it and recite the Quran with measured recitation."

(The Holy Quran 73:1-4)

Gentlemen, this can't get any clearer. There's too many signs here and to many parallels for it to be mere coincidences.

The last part of the verse (i.e. "Blessings will enwrap a teacher") was accurately translated on chabad.org.

Verse 8: "They will go from army to army in fear of God in Zion"

Mirroring the Islamic history of the various battles they had in defense of the early Muslims from the warring polytheists and others.

3. When examining verses mentioning "Zion," it bears a striking resemblance to Mecca in several aspects:

The encircling of Zion:

Psalm 48:12:

"March around Zion, encircle her, count her towers."

The Kaaba is the only Abrahamic object that is encircled in a ritual (of worship). This cannot possibly just be God telling people to walk around town randomly to count towers, it doesn't make any sense that it would at all.

The reason why Zion became "Bacca" (i.e. "mourning" as it translates in both Hebrew and Arabic):

Lamentations 1:4:

"The roads to Zion mourn, empty of pilgrims to her feasts. All her gateways are desolate, her priests groan, Her young women grieve; her lot is bitter."

It is not just a mere coincidence that Mecca historically also was called "Mourning" in Arabic (The word "Bakkah," which means "Crying" in Arabic) and that this very location was and still is a location of Abrahamic pilgrimage.

God will Testify against Israel from Zion:

Psalm 50:

2. "From Zion, perfect in beauty, God shines forth.

3. Our God comes and will not be silent; a fire devours before him, and around him a tempest rages.
4. He summons the heavens above, and the earth, that he may judge his people:
5. “Gather to me this consecrated people, who made a covenant with me by sacrifice.”
6. And the heavens proclaim his righteousness, for he is a God of justice.
7. “Listen, my people, and I will speak; I will testify against you, Israel: I am God, your God."

This has been accomplished solely through one sacred text in the annals of history, namely the Holy Quran.

In Zion, there stands a Stone, a precious cornerstone, much like in Mecca—a test of faith:

Isaiah 28:16:

"Therefore this is what the Lord GOD says: “Behold, I am laying a stone in Zion, a tested stone, A precious cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. The one who believes in it will not be disturbed."

The one who believes in it will find safety and tranquility. It is not merely faith in the stone itself, but rather the belief concerning the Stone and the One who placed it there – this is the test of faith we face today. Such belief is what fortifies one's faith, preventing it from wavering or being unsettled. It seems inconceivable that God would declare, "The one who believes in it will not..." without any knowledge of a significant stone in existence today.

With this I end this article.

/By Exion.

//No copyright, spread and incorporate into your own websites as you wish.

Claim: the Bible taken as a whole is such a poor way to establish a relationship with humanity that it beggars belief to say this is an all-powerful, omniscient being’s attempt to forge a relationship with us.

There are many scientific inaccuracies and other faults in the Bible. These actually drive away modern people, the existence of which God must have known about as he is beyond time. To say nothing of the fact that for most people in the world, it must be read in translation.

I understand the modern interpretation is that the writers were divinely inspired rather than it being the inerrant word of God… but considering how much of it is internally inconsistent or disproven by science, you’d figure God would have stopped trusting interlocutors and found a better way to communicate with His people.

He could do the booming voice from the sky bit, he could have inspired someone in the modern era, he could have made natural events happen in such a way they clearly communicate the presence or intent of God.

You also figure that God would do something to stop people from perverting His Bible — for instance, heretics should have been hit by lightning from the sky. Islam should not have been allowed to exist at all.

But he doesn’t do that. So I conclude that God either does not care about a relationship with human beings or He does not exist.

Can any Christian set me straight here? Personally I want to believe after living as an atheist for so long, but I find it very hard to reconcile basic aspects of the Christian faith with logic or common sense.

Preface that I am a Christian so this post doesn't disparage God at all, just trying to see others views on my train of thought recently. For me, this view and the opposing view does not prove or disprove God. Please only discuss the point. I am not looking at a post that devolves in to trying to prove or disprove God or the Bible. I do that on other posts.

God is eternal / infinite /existing eternally God is omniscient / omnipotent God is perfect

Therefore God's plan is Eternal / infinite / existing eternally God's plan is known by omniscient and affected by omnipotence. God's plan is perfect for its purpose

If God's plan existed eternally and is the most perfect for its purpose than God never made a choice to create this plan, or really any choice, in that the best would always automatically be selected.

Additional point is that choices and decisions require a linear experience of time which God does not experience.

We already know that God cannot sin, so therefore he does not have a free will to act contrary to his nature.

Free will is defined as : the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

But God must act in accordance with the necessity in that he must act according to his plan and any changes would not be changes as he would have eternally known and therefore planned for them. And he cannot act according to his discretion in that there are things he cannot do, and any discretion would necessitate a choice, which again needs a linear flow of time and a limited sense of knowledge, but even if he had those things he'd be required to choose the one that resulted in the most good overall, and that would have been accounted for in his initial plan, which, like him, had existed eternally and therefore was never created or chosen

Thesis: Title

There are many unpleasant things in our world, from having stomach pain after eating some bad food to the sharp pain of a broken bone to listening to Red Dress by Sarah Brand.

But unpleasant does not mean evil, or morally undesirable. It is good for us to experience thirst, despite thirst being unpleasant. People can die from the side effect of drugs removing the sensation of thirst, in fact a relative of mine did. Likewise, it is better for us to know that we are burning our hand on the oven than it is for us to burn our hands, blissfully unaware of the damage we are taking. It is the burning that is the problem, not the suffering.

But atheists get this backwards all the time with the PoE. It wouldn't be morally preferable for the world to have no suffering in it (sometimes: "needless suffering" whatever that means), because that wouldn't stop the actual problems (the equivalent to burning hands). It would just detach cause and consequence in a way that would make the world objectively worse for everyone.

This is yet another irrational consequence (irony intended) of Consequentialism / Ethical Hedonism / Utilitarianism, and how deeply rooted it is in the atheist critiques of religion, most notably with the Problem of Evil, where the existence of suffering is held to be incompatible with that of a good God.

Yet if God gave all humans CIP (Congenital Insensitivity to Pain - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain) it would make the world objectively worse. As the wikipedia puts it, it is an extremely dangerous condition, as pain is vital for survival.

Possible Response #1: Well, when we say "remove suffering", we actually mean removing the thing causing the suffering. It would still be bad to burn your hand even if you didn't feel it.

Answer to #1: Then you have conceded that it is not suffering that you care about, but something else, which defeats the supposed contradiction between suffering and an all-good God.

Possible Response #2: Well, God could just eliminate every single thing that causes unpleasant sensations, like having humans not need to drink water and thus not experience thirst, or not need to be able to burn and thus not experience pain from touching hot things, no eating so no hunger, no sleeping and so no tiredness, etc., so that people do not experience anything negative ever.

Answer to #2: What you are talking about is embracing annihilation. The only way an intelligent agent could be guaranteed to experience no suffering is to not exist temporally. Even in heaven we see that the Devil rebelled against God, and we see that angels were jealous of the physical life on earth humans had, despite the suffering. Heaven is therefore not a world where you will be immune to suffering, so you can't use that as an excuse for why the earth isn't like it.

Edit in an argument to support this point: Suffering is caused by thwarted desires. Any time two freely willed agents interact, they can want two opposing things, thus at most only one of them can have their desires satisfied, with the other experiencing suffering. The only solution to this is to isolate an agent by themselves, which will cause loneliness, which is another form of suffering. Thus, the only way to have no suffering is to have no temporal freely bound agents at all - which entails either annihilation (destroying everything) or having no time at all.

Conclusion: We can see that all of these atheist discussions of suffering being morally wrong, and thus incompatible with an all-good God are unfounded. While pain is unpleasant, unpleasant is not equivalent to evil, and thus there is no contradiction, and any formulation of the PoE that relies on the premise that goodness entails removing suffering is unfounded.

I am an agnostic who had been viewing the r/atheism subreddit for a couple months and had been viewing quite a few toxic things from this community. Initially, it was just stuff that had to do with religion being disapproven, but I saw it devolve into hate for religion (which is fair, I'm sure many of them came from previously abusive religious backgrounds), finally I saw it for what it is. A hateful group of people who are no better than any religious group.

Some of these people truly hated their fellow man just for believing in something different than themselves and, just like someone religious, felt the need to lecture and force their world view onto those people. These people truly went livid at the idea that somebody should attribute something to a higher power and just immediately wanted to belittle them for thinking that way.

I thought I could call some attention to this hypocrisy in the subreddit, and made a post about it, only to get told that I did not know what I was talking about in the comments. I then was promptly banned from the subreddit.

I thought atheists were supposed to be above religious people in their tolerance of others, but they honestly just reinforced the stereotype about atheists many people have in my interactions with them. They literally accused me of not being an agnostic because I told them they should feel compassion for others and respect them instead of being angry at them. I wish I could link the post but I believe it was deleted.

Edit: what I posted

I would say I lean more toward that atheist side but I am an agnostic who has been on this sub for a couple months and I honestly have to say that this sub isn't what I was expecting.

A ton of the stuff I see here is just hate for religious people without any empathy. I see people who get mad at others just for believing in something different than themselves who want to lecture those people on why they are wrong. You know what? That makes you just as bad as any religious person because you are trying to to force them to see "the truth." Yes maybe atheism is more likely true than any religions are but that does not mean we are obligated to lecture those who don't see the world that way. It should not set you off when you hear somebody pray or attribute something to religion, you should be respectful of them and only get into a debate if they are willing to discuss it with you.

In terms of coping mechanisms, religion is one of the healthier ones, and studies show that religious people actually tend to live happier, more social lives than nonreligious people due to their relationships they build within a place of worship with one another.

A lot of you really aren't proving the stereotypes about atheists wrong and that makes me sad. Show some compassion for your fellow man.

for background i grew up atheist and spent 2 years studying/practicing spirituality. another 2 years studying buddhism. what made me not believe in god at first was my views about organized religion. the idea of a hell and heaven and a jesus who sacrificed himself for our salvation is ridiculous in my mind. a god who is unfair towards women, restricts people from enjoying simple pleasures, punishes people even though they have no set moral guidance to follow DIRECTLY from god himself (not scripture written thousands of years ago by old men), all point in the direction that christianity is man-made. this version of god was decided thousands of years ago and used as a way to manipulate societies into certain behavioral patterns.

i believe people would be much happier/many more people would believe in god if religion was not a group practice. religion should be personal. everyone has their own unique connection to the world around them. their own ways of seeing god within and throughout the world. everyone should pray how they want to pray and practice how they want to. god comes naturally. religion strips the natural part of the process into a strict framework. it takes the best part out of god. the part where YOU personally find him. where you see his wonders for yourself through your intricate thought processes. where you pray because you have innate desire to communicate with god and feel his presence. not because someone told you this is the truth and you convinced yourself it was true.

just to clarify, to me god isnt anyone entity. god is the universe experiencing itself. the energy you give out is energy you instantly receive yourself. god smiles upon you only when you search for his light.

The Qur'an is believed to be the last testament from the one and only God which is supposedly the abrahamic God that was the God of Judaism and Christianity as well, it is believed to be a timeless message, and it is believe to complete even on its own without the hadiths.

The Quran and hadiths have been fully interpreted back to back throughout generations, these interpretations were agreed upon by the majority of believers, some have different as you have different schools/denominations that differ on a few things, different readings of the Quran, and then you have the whole Shi'a and Sunni as well, however, this does bring up the question of this debate, is the changing in the interpretation by excuse of "its a timeless book and we discover new things" making the Qur'an less credible in its messaging? Let us check a few examples.

1- Starting off strong is the creation story, the creation story is found at the beginning of Surah 41 (Surah Fussilat) describes the creation of the universe in 3 phases:

Phase 1: first 2 days he created the earth, and then the sky.

Phase 2: he created everything on earth then rose to the sky when it was smoke in the 4th day

Phase 3: he made the sky, 7 skies, or the 7 heavens then he decorated it with lamps (interpreted as stars, but was later changed to planets)

The issue here is, today we know that universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years ago, thus from the start it took about 9.3 billion years for the earth to exist, and it was not created before the "sky" and it was not made before the stars or before the planets as Mars and Jupiter are actually older than earth, and the earth is basically born thanks to the sun (a star).

The sky being smoke, Muslims refer to this as the big bang after math when a large part of the universe was in a smoke-like state, which was 300,000 years after the big bang. However! Before it was translated as the water vapor, as Allah was on water or his throne was, so it was the smoke from the water after creation.

Even if we were to accept this.... how can 9.3 billio users fit in 300,000 years?

2- the expansion of the universe, in 51:47 of the Quran is claimed to be the expansion of the universe! However... saying that موسعون is expanding is not really ideal, as the word was interpreted to be the "ability" to give more or grant/bless more.

قال ابن عباس : لقادرون . وقيل : أي وإنا لذو سعة ، وبخلقها وخلق غيرها لا يضيق علينا شيء نريده . وقيل : أي وإنا لموسعون الرزق على خلقنا . عن ابن عباس أيضا . الحسن : وإنا لمطيقون . وعنه أيضا : وإنا لموسعون الرزق بالمطر . وقال الضحاك : أغنيناكم ; دليله : على الموسع قدره . وقال القتبي : ذو سعة على خلقنا . والمعنى متقارب . وقيل : جعلنا بينهما وبين الأرض سعة . الجوهري : وأوسع الرجل أي صار ذا سعة وغنى ، ومنه قوله تعالى : والسماء بنيناها بأيد وإنا لموسعون أي أغنياء قادرون. فشمل جميع الأقوال .

3- Surah Al-Tariq..... goodness gracious where do I begin with this one? This Surah in its entirety has been reinterpreted more times than you think! Even to this day, especially the infamous part about the ribs and the back bone being where s*men comes from, some argue it means it's about where the baby is held, and some talk about it being the connection between the man and the woman something soft and something hard.....etc.

That aside, the first half of the Surah is also controversial, as today they claim the Tariq the star! Is talking about a black hole, or the quasar, or the center of the galaxy....etc

But what did they say it was back then?

ابن الكثير: قال قتادة وغيره : إنما سمي النجم طارقا ; لأنه إنما يرى بالليل ويختفي بالنهار . ويؤيده ما جاء في الحديث الصحيح : نهى أن يطرق الرجل أهله طروقا أي : يأتيهم فجأة بالليل . وفي [ ص: 375 ] الحديث الآخر المشتمل على الدعاء : ” إلا طارقا يطرق بخير يا رحمن ” .

Here in the interpretation by ibn al-katheer narrated by Quradah and others is that thus star it was named Al-Tariq because it is seen at night and disappears in the morning! And it is like the man coming suddenly to his family! So Tariq or Tarak as in sudden! Or unannounced, out of the blue basically.

4- Child marriage.... so is Aisha 18 now? Some say 19, some say 17.... the age of Aisha is controversial even tho that the 2nd most credible Islamic source for sunni Muslims after the Quran says that she was 6 when married, and 9 when the marriage is consummated, Muslims argue that child marriage isn't something in Islam! And the Quran doesn't mention it!!

Well, here is the thing.... Surah Al-Talak verse 4 describes the preparation period for divorce, and that period is 3 menustrations

Simple enough.

It says, if the wife is pregnant, then her period is until she gives birth.

If she's too old and can't menustrate anymore? Then you wait 3 months

If she's too young and can't menustrate YET? then also you wait 3 months.

So we can clearly see that it is okay to marry a child in fact! Scholars say it is okay to even marry an infant in the cradle! However, you must wait until they hit puberty to consummate the marriage (so around 15-20% of girls have their first menustration at the ages of 5-7, the rest usually have it between 8-10) so still young.

After presenting this, you will be met with an excuse that we are talking about a taboo that was okay back then! So we can't judge it by today's standards.

Well... Islam was doing well banning taboos in society like marrying a divorced woman became okay, it talked about adoption polygamy, it was heavily invested in reforming the social norms, so why was child marriage still okay? And why do some neglect those hadiths about Aisha and changing the interpretation of the Quranic verse to make seem like child marriage isn't okay in Islam and that Aisha was much older than we were told?

• In conclusion : a word being open to interpretation, and change at any level isn't something we call timeless, a word that claims to be perfect from the perfect God, a word that claims to be the truth, to be a guide, a word that specifically says it is CLEAR and UNDERSTANDABLE means it shouldn't be open for interpretations.

This not only decreases the credibility of the Qur'an as a divine word, it also decreases the credibility of Allah being a God (or real to begin with) as well as decreasing Muhammad's credibility as being truthful/honest as a true prophet from the one and only God.

Obviously it is always said that the Quran is a book of signs, and not science, but Muslims like to refer to verses and such citing them to be scientific, even tho any glance at actual science, prior interpretations, learning more about the Arabic language, studying the Quran more, and seeing outside the box like for example evolution, as Muhammad said we are all from Adam and Adam is from dirt.... we are not, we are actually from LUCA, but thats another topic.

The quran betrays itself by claiming to be clear, as those verses are twisted in meaning without any proof backing up these modern interpretations in order to fit the scientific narrative and continue the claim for the Quran to be timeless.

As Romans 13 says: The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

God hand selected Joe Biden to lead the USA, do you not approve of God's selection?

Just discovered that fresh Friday is a thing. I don't THINK this post comes under a banned topic, apologies if it does.

Apologies if this doesn't really make sense. It is my first attempt at communicating this kind of argument and I wrote it on my phone while sitting in a soft play center. Please ask if clarification is necessary and desired.

I have also posted this on r/debateanatheist as I am interested in gaining a range of feedback

DISCLAIMER

This is not really a proof as such. I intend to demonstrate that

1. given a number of variables that it should theoretically be possible to at least estimate, it should be possible to estimate the probability that our universe was created intentionally rather than by random processes.

2. that given our current knowledge and best estimations, it is more likely that our universe was created intentionally than that it was created as a result of random processes.

DEFINITIONS

Created intentionally: I am using this to describe the universe being created as a result of something other than random processes. The most obvious example is intentional creation by a creator, but there may be other non random processes that fit.

Created as a result of random processes: I think this is self explanatory. The universe we live in arose purely by chance.

HYPOTHESIS

Null hypothesis: our universe was created as a result of random processes

Alternate hypothesis: our universe was created intentionally by a "godlike" being.

VARIABLES

P(u) = Probability of a universe being created by random processes that is capable of supporting life.

P(g) = probability of life within a universe evolving to the point at which it is capable of interacting with and creating other universes.

N = the number of universes that exist, either at the same time or sequentially.

P(U)

It is hard to pin down a precise number, however all credible estimates of the probability of our universe arising by chance are astronomically small.

Roger Penrose given data available in 1979 estimated the probability to be less than 1 in 10^(10^30).

Clearly there can be disagreement about the precise number as it is an estimate, however there is agreement among mathematicians that P(u) is astronomically small.

P(g)

Again we do not have the data to pin down an exact number for P(g) and the best we can do is present an estimate.

Based on the evolution of life on earth, mathematicians have estimated the probability of intelligent life emerging on similar planets to earth, and by extension the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe.

An example of one such equation is the drake equation.

Using modifications if the drake equation, in 2916 frank and Sullivan estimated his likely it is that earth has the only technological species ever to develop in our Galaxy to be less than 1.7 x10^11.

It is clear that the probability that a universe that is suitable for life will develop at least one technological species must be approaching 1.

But what is the probability that a technological species will develop the ability to influence our create other universes?

One way it has been speculated that this might be possible is through simulating a universe. In fact it has been proposed that it is highly likely that our own universe is a simulation.

The most that we can say it present is that currently it is not possible to interact with our create (or simulate) other universes, but that as technology advances it theoretically could become possible to do so.

We can estimate therefore that P(g) is likely to be higher than 0 but it is difficult to put a more precise number on it. Out could probably be argued that IF P(g) is not 0 then it is probably close to 1 - since it is reasonable to assume that if it is not completely impossible then technology will inevitably advance to the point that it becomes practical.

N = 1

Let's start with the case where N=1. There is only one universe, and it is the one we live in.

Because P(u) is astronomically small, we can reject the null hypothesis.

The probability of a single universe being created by random chance is so small that it is practically zero.

This supports the alternate hypothesis that the universe was intentionally created.

One way to get around this is to hypothesise a multiverse involving not just one universe, but many.

Very unlikely events can become likely if there are enough chances for them to happen. As long as P(u) is greater than zero, then given enough universes, the probability of at least 1 being suitable for life will approach 1.

HOW MANY UNIVERSES DO WE NEED?

Given an estimate for P(u) we can come up with an estimated probability that for any given number of universes at least one will randomly be suitable for life.

Using this we can establish a base line for the minimum number of universes necessary for it to be more likely that the universe was created by random processes than that it was created intentionally.

The biggest problem here is that the probability arrived at by Penrose is so astronomically low that mathematicians consider it to be functionaly equivalent to zero.

As a result the number of universes required to fulfil our criteria is so astronomically high that I can't find a calculator capable of actually processing it.

In practical terms, the floor for the number of universes necessary to say that it universe is most likely the result of random processes is approaching infinity.

P(u) = INFINITY

So let's look at the other end of the scale. What if we assume there are an infinite number of universes.

Now we have enough universes that it is likely that at least one universe has been created by random processes.

In fact, with an infinite number of universes there will be an infinite number of randomly occurring universes capable of supporting life.

This is important because with an infinite number of universes capable of supporting life (and so an infinite number of universes containing life) the probability of life in at least one of those universes developing the ability and willingness to interact with and create other universes becomes 1 (unless p(g) is zero).

In a multiverse where at least one universe has developed the capability and willingness to interact with and create other universes, the ratio of randomly created universes is so small that they will quickly be outnumbered by universes which are intentionally created.

This means that if there are an infinite number of universes, our universe is much more likely to have been created intentionally than to have been created through random chance.

U = LESS THAN INFINITY

P(u) is very close to 0 but it is still not zero which means that while the floor for the number of universes necessary to make it likely for at least one universe to be suitable for life is close to infinity, it should theoretically still be a finite, just astronomically high, number.

If the number of universes (N) is below this floor, then we have established it to be unlikely that the universe was created by random processes.

If N is above this floor however, but still not infinity, then what?

Theoretically there is also a ceiling beyond which at least one universe has life developed to the point at which it can interact with and create other universes. At this point, as we discussed above, the ratio of random universes to intentional universes tips heavily towards ones which were intentionally created and the it becomes highly likely that our universe is one which was created intentionally.

It is clear then that there is a range of values for N between the floor and ceiling discussed above, where our universe is more likely than not to have been created by random processes however if N lies either above or below this range it is highly unlikely that the universe was created by random processes.

Unless P(g) is effectively 0, this range of values must be less than the range of values between 0 and the floor.

As the ceiling is finite and the highest possible value for N is infinity, this range of values is less (infinitely so) than the range of values above the ceiling.

This means that the probability of N falling between the floor and ceiling is very low (potentially approaching 0).

WHAT DOES ALL THAT ACTUALLY MEAN?

Because can only estimate most of these values, we cannot reach a definitive conclusion. However there are conclusions that can be drawn:

Unless one of these statements is true:

1. P(g) = 0

2. N falls between the floor and ceiling discussed above

Then the following statements must be true:

3. our universe is very unlikely to have been created by random processes

4. our universe is highly likely to have been created intentionally

Because 1 and 2 have been shown to be unlikely, 3 and 4 are likely to be true.

Thus it is statistically (much) more likely that our universe was created intentionally than that it was created as a result of random processes.

Thank you for attempting to follow my rambling, and apologies for everything that is (inevitably) unclear. I am not used to forming arguments of this type.

Observation and thesis: The resurrection narratives are not reliable historical reports based on eyewitness testimony because they deviate too much from one another and grow in the telling in chronological order. This is not expected from reliable eyewitness testimony but is more expected from a legend developing over time. In order to show the resurrection narratives evolve like a legend developing, I'm going to compare the ways Jesus is said to have been "seen" or "experienced" after the Resurrection in each account according to the order in which most scholars place the compositions. Remember, these accounts are claimed to be from eyewitnesses who all experienced the same events so we would at least expect some sort of consistency.

Beginning with Paul (50s CE), who is our earliest and only verified firsthand account in the entire New Testament from someone who claims to have "seen" Jesus, he is also the only verified firsthand account we have from someone who claims to have personally met Peter and James - Gal. 1:18-19. Paul does not give any evidence of anything other than "visions" or "revelations" of Jesus (2 Cor 12). The Greek words ophthe (1 Cor 15:5-8), heoraka (1 Cor 9:1) and apokalupto (Gal. 1:16) do not necessarily imply the physical appearance of a person and so cannot be used as evidence for veridical experiences where an actual resurrected body was seen in physical reality. In Paul's account, it is unclear whether the "appearances" were believed to have happened before or after Jesus was believed to be in heaven, ultimately making the nature of these experiences ambiguous in our earliest source. Peter and James certainly would have told Paul about the empty tomb or the time they touched Jesus and watched him float to heaven. These "proofs" (Acts 1:3) would have certainly been helpful in convincing the doubting Corinthians in 1 Cor 15:12-20 and also help clarify the type of body the resurrected would have (v. 35). So these details are very conspicuous in their absence here.

Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.

Mark (70 CE) adds the discovery of the empty tomb but does not narrate any appearances so no help here really. He just claims Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. This is very unexpected if the account really came from Peter's testimony. Why leave out the most important part especially, if Papias was correct, that "Mark made sure not to omit anything he heard"? Did Peter just forget to tell Mark this!? Anyways, there is no evidence a resurrection narrative existed at the time of composition of Mark's gospel circa 70 CE.

Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable.

Matthew (80 CE) adds onto Mark's narrative, drops the remark that the "women told no one" from Mk16:8 and instead, has Jesus suddenly appear to the women on their way to tell the disciples! It says they grabbed his feet which is not corroborated by any other account. Then, Jesus appeared to the disciples on a mountain in Galilee, another uncorroborated story, and says some even doubted it! (Mt. 28:17) So the earliest narrative doesn't even support the veracity of the event! Why would they doubt when they had already witnessed him the same night of the Resurrection according to Jn. 20:19? Well, under the development theory - John's story never took place! It's a later development, obviously, which perfectly explains both the lack of mention of any Jerusalem appearances in our earliest gospels plus the awkward "doubt" after already having seen Jesus alive!

Matthew's order of appearances: Two women (before reaching any disciples), then to the eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place after they leave the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.

Luke (85 CE or later) - All of Luke's appearances happen in or around Jerusalem which somehow went unnoticed by the authors of Mark and Matthew. Jesus appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then suddenly vanishes from their sight. They return to tell the other disciples and a reference is made to the appearance to Peter (which may just come from 1 Cor 15:5 since it's not narrated). Jesus suddenly appears to the Eleven disciples (which would include Thomas). This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports! Luke omits any appearance to the women and actually implies they *didn't* see Jesus. Acts 1:3 adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days and says Jesus provided "many convincing proofs he was alive" which shows the stories were apologetically motivated. There is no evidence that Luke intended to convey Jesus ever appeared to anyone in Galilee. Moreover, Luke leaves no room for any Galilean appearance because he has Jesus tell the disciples to "stay in the city" of Jerusalem the same night of the resurrection - Lk. 24:49. It looks as though the Galilean appearance tradition has been erased by Luke which would be a deliberate alteration of the earlier tradition (since Luke was dependent upon Mark's gospel).

Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. Lk. 24:22-24 seems to exclude any appearance to the women. The women's report in Lk. 24:9-10 is missing any mention of seeing Jesus which contradicts Mt. 28:8-11 and Jn. 20:11-18.

John (90-110 CE) - the ascension has become tradition by the time John wrote (Jn. 3:13, 6:62, 20:17). Jesus appears to Mary outside the tomb who does not recognize him at first. Then Jesus, who can now teleport through locked doors, appears to the disciples minus Thomas. A week later we get the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus invites Thomas to poke his wounds. This story has the apologetic purpose that if you just "believe without seeing" you will be blessed. Lastly, there is another appearance by the Sea of Galilee in Jn. 21 in which Jesus appears to seven disciples. None of these stories are corroborated except for the initial appearance (which may draw upon Luke). It looks as though the final editor of John has tried to combine the disparate traditions of appearances.

John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene (after telling Peter and the other disciple), the disciples minus Thomas (but Lk. 24:33 implies Thomas was there), the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip.

Gospel of Peter (2nd century) - I'm including the apocryphal Gospel of Peter because the story keeps evolving. Thank you u/SurpassingAllKings. Verses 35-42 read:

But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher. But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered. And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.'

Conclusion: None of the resurrection narratives from the gospels match Paul's appearance chronology from 1 Cor 15:5-8. The story evolves from what seems to be Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ who is experienced through visions/revelations, to a missing body story in Mark without an appearance narrative, to a "doubted" appearance in Galilee in Matthew, to a totally different and much more realistic/corporeal appearance (no more doubting) in Luke (followed by a witnessed ascension in a totally different location), to a teleporting Jesus that invites Thomas to poke his wounds to prove he's real in John (the theme of doubt is overcome). The last two stories have clearly stated apologetic reasons for invention.

Challenge: I submit this as a clear pattern of "development" that is better explained by the legendary growth hypothesis (LGH) as opposed to actual experienced events. Now the onus is on anyone who disagrees to explain why the story looks so "developed" while simultaneously maintaining its historical reliability. In order to achieve this, one must look to other historical records and provide other reliable sources from people who all experienced the same events but also exhibit the same amount of growth and disparity as the gospel resurrection narratives.

Until this challenge is met, the resurrection narratives should be regarded as legends because reliable eyewitness testimony does not have this degree of growth or inconsistency. This heads off the "but they were just recording things from their own perspectives" apologetic. In order for that claim to carry any evidential weight, one must find other examples of this type of phenomenon occurring in testimony that is deemed reliable. Good luck! I predict any example provided with the same degree of growth as the gospel resurrection narratives will either be regarded as legendary themselves or be too questionable to be considered reliable.