Before I continue…. I’m not bashing atheist I’m just making an observation…. I Know there are smart atheist. I know there are smart Theists. When you have 2 groups that are equally human and can equally observe. And come to a conclusion…..why they believe in their theology. It has come to my conclusion that atheists are just too arrogant. Why can’t atheist except they can’t know everything. Therefore it’s impossible for God to not be possible. It’s a willing decision to turn away from a possibility. All because they think they know everything and that the conclusion they come to is better than the objective reality. You can say you don’t believe in God. But doesn’t mean that it’s not possible….. It just seems silly to me. Like you can have 2/3 chances of there being no god. So because you came to the conclusion that the odds of there being no god outweighs the possibility that there is a god. So therefore it must be true…. But you can’t guarantee that if you put those odds on a wheel and divided it between 2/3 no god; and 1/3 a God. And spun it, it could be possible to land on that 1/3… Because you cannot prove that there isn’t A God…. You can only come to a conclusion based on observation, that it isn’t possible based on your own definition of reality. So the greatest attribute of an Alpha is Humility. Knowing that you cannot know everything. So when an atheist is being arrogant. And not considering the possibility. Or considering it and turning away is not Alpha.

Humans make rules for each other all the time, laws, codes, suggestions. Humans are limited in what we know is even possible, and our rules have ended to be updated to fit our understanding as what was previously impossible becomes commonplace.

Divine rules should not have this problem

Humans have only recently gained a better understanding of our cosmos. Until the time of Galileo, our perception of space was of perfect spheres and the stars being fixed points. Before Darwin our conception of species was mostly that all animals that exist eternally without change. We had one little world that worked mostly based on how gods/God/etc willed it work.

The Holy Books are filled with rules either divinely inspired or allegedly directly from the divine. However, the commandments from a divine being, who would know the larger scale of the cosmos, seem incrediably narrow, on the a scale an ancient human or humans could conceive.

For example, the prohibition of eating certain meats. Muslims are not allowed to eat pork, Catholics are not allowed to eat meat of the land on Fridays, Jews can only eat Kosher meat, etc. However, a pig is an animal that only existed for the last few thousand years, selectively bred and domesticated from the European Wild Boar (note if you are a creationist, please refer to this https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution, I am assuming evolution is a fact for this debate). For God, the pig has lived only for a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of eternity, but for a preacher living in the Middle East the pig might as well have existed forever and will continue to do so. A God selecting this one animal we could drive extinct tomorrow seems incrediably arbitrary for a being who seen the entire history of the Earth’s biology, but a guy living in 7th century CE Arabia, the pig might as well be eternal se the night’s sky.

God in the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran was very interested in how you are to treat your slave or how many fabrics are in your clothing, but nothing on the use of nuclear weapons, no guidelines on how to pray on the moon or while zipping by on a space station, or rules about being a troll on Reddit. We have so many situations the ancient world could not conceive of, yet the divine rule books are either silent on the issue or have to get interpreted by humans to fit the ancient rules into modern scenarios (such as Muslims on the ISS praying as if they were at the launch sight rather trying to fit five prayers into 19 minute “days”) that the rules are entirely silent on.

Both the Bible and the Quran claim to be the the last divine revelations, so there is not room for an update to declare if mass strip mining, contributing to species extinct, or if playing virtual reality games counts as a sin.

I am not saying that these books do not have fairly universally applicable rules, such as prohibitions against murder applies through all of human history, just the oddly specific rules religious teachings have, and the lack of rules anticipating human advancement in knowledge and technology shows these were rules created by man, not God/gods/etc.

My mind wont be convinced that god is real without sufficient evidence, my mind believing in something is not a choice but it just happens. I cant just say i believe in hinduism without actually having that feeling of 'knowing' its the truth. So if I am shown evidence claiming that God is real, my mind instantly decides and forms a decision whether or not i believe it, completely without my 'real' input. Therefore i have no control over what i believe and do not believe, i just do. For example, I can say that I met Kanye West, Rihanna and Joe Biden whilst shopping at the mall, none of you would believe me, i could first show you a picture. Some would be convinced its real some would be convinced its A.I, so then i show you a video of them with me and with my face in it too , some would be convinced and some still unconvinced, Until Kanye , Rihanna and sleepy joe all tweet that they did indeed meet me at the mall. You will then most likely believe me.. so with enough evidence that could be applied to religion, with enough evidence, some people can be convinced to join that religion. But why should it be that if you still are not convinced, you should go to hell for being a non-believer?We do not choose whether or not we are convinced by something. Itd be completely immoral for God to send us to hell for something that we as humans can not control . That being our belief.

Finding a post or thread here which discusses or objects to Shinto is harder than landing a white whale, so I'm making this post to invoke debate on and objections to aspects of Shinto theory (relevant to any sects within the religion other than Ryobu, Hokke and other primarily Buddhist interpretations of Shinto).

I'll try to respond to and ideally debate against responses as best I can as they are submitted.

Sorry, deleted OP. I said a lot of things that sounded different than I intended and could potentially be harmful. Idk if it’s better to just delete the thread, if so maybe a mod can do that

Premise 1: Conscious Deciding agents(I'm phrasing it this way to deliberately include Humans, angels and demons) do not have free will. I'll explain this briefly

Premise 2: God Punishes Conscious Agents based on their actions (even if you believe in free grace or OSAS you at least believe that where you go after death is based off what you believe. which I don't think we control either)

Deduction 1: God punishes Deciding agents based on things they can't control.

Premise 3: An All-powerful, All-loving god would not punish people for things they can't control (This belief is held by many Christians and is the explanation for what happens to people who never heard the good news before dying)

Conclusion: An all-powerful, All-loving god does not exist

As for my argument against free will:

All mental activity, whether material or immaterial(in case you believe in a soul or something) is either Determined by something or not determined by anything.

If it is indetermined it is random. and by definition not in our control, and if it is determined by something, then it's either determined by something further inside your self or something outside your self.

If it is determined by something outside your self it can't be a free choice and if it is determined by something inside your self we simply push the problem back and have to ask the same question until eventually all mental activity (by mental activity I mean thoughts, choices, etc. I'm not implying that angels and demons have some sort of physical, fleshy brain like humans) terminates at something random or something outside of the self.

Either way free will doesn't exist.

Alrighty, with that taken care of let's go over a list of things in the bible that have their context changed by lack of free will, huh? That way we can really see how omnibenevolent this YHWH guy is anyway.

Satan and his angels are cast out of heaven for "CHOOSING" to rebel

Adam, Eve, and the entire human race fall from grace for "CHOOSING" to commit the original sin

angel of death kills all the firstborn children in an entire country because the pharaoh "CHOSE" not to let the Israelites go (y'know now that I think about it that sounds cruel even with free will)

god flooded the earth, drowning millions of men, women, young children, and animals because they "CHOSE" to be evil (those darn evil babies!!!)

multiple genocides are carried out in the old testament, but it's okay because all those guys are super wicked, if anything it's there fault for "CHOOSING" such a depraved way of life.

Saul is rejected as king for "CHOOSING" to disobey god

and most importantly, billions of people are going to burn in hell for eternity because they "CHOSE" to sin

do I really need to keep going?

As a side note I suppose this may be applicable to islam but I don't know for sure. I was raised Christian so that's what I speak on but I would be interested to hear how a muslim would reconcile the lack of free will with eternal punishment. maybe there's a verse that explains it idk

Islam can’t be criticized. Your Islamic “criticisms” are false, and I can debunk them. Tell me your criticisms in the comments and i’ll disprove them.

One more thing to keep in mind, first of all I am only one person so I will be responding on at a time. Second, i’m not some sort of 24/7 redditor that can respond immediately. I am busy, and i’ll take my time, so please patient.

So my argument stems from the fact that Moses never knew who Jesus was and believed in the god of the Israelites. Now a Christian will respond with “but Jesus wasn’t sent yet” this unfortunately leads to contradictions and even paradoxes, if Jesus wasn’t sent yet/created yet then he essentially isn’t god because then God had to create him, therefore Jesus can’t be god as god is uncreated. We know that Moses never believed in Jesus but believed in 1 God. Now if the Christian argues that Jesus is the son of God then this is even worse as it essential means that God created Jesus as another god since Jesus is also God, that means there are now 2 gods- a greater god and a lesser god which is Jesus ( I don’t see any difference between this and Zeus having a daughter like Athena).

Anyone here believe in God? I've been pondering: if everything happens according to God's will, where does free will fit in? And I'm not a fan of destiny either. It feels like no matter what choices we make, we're still led to what the universe/God has planned. It's a tough pill to swallow, but if it's true, I hope to come to terms with it eventually.

How can u have an honest debate when there is NO consensus on the terms and definitions. Everybody is arguing from their opinion and subjective definitions

Incongruence of Gospel’s Account of the Empty Tomb

To recap, in Mark 16 - Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome went to the tomb after sunrise but found it was already rolled away. They told no one about Jesus’(pbuh) body being missing

In Matthew 28 Mary Magdalene and Mary (presumably Mary mother of James) went to the tomb at dawn and saw the stone had not yet been rolled back. A violent earthquake occurs and an angel descends who then rolls back the stone. The women ran to tell the disciples.

Luke 24 days that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and others went to the tomb very early in the morning to find the tomb already rolled away and two men in white present.

Finally, in John 20 only Mary Magdalene is named and she goes while it’s still dark to the tomb of Jesus(pbuh) only to find the tomb already rolled away. She ran to tell the disciples.

The difference within these 4 accounts are 1) number of people 2) time of day 3) number of angels 4) whether or not the stone was rolled away 5) occurrence of an earthquake and 6) what the angels said (which i didn’t mention in this post) 7) whether or not they told the anyone

Some of these discrepancies can be written off as minor, though possibly an issue seeing as all scripture is supposedly “God breathed” according to 2 Timothy it can be overlooked for the sake of this post. In those to be ignored I would say the number of people, time of day, number of angels and what the angels said. This leaves us with three main discrepancies that are: the presence of a seismic event (the earthquake) whether or not the stone was rolled away when the women got to the tomb and whether or not they told anyone what they had seen.

In Mark, Luke and John the tomb had already been rolled away when the women arrived, contradicting Matthew’s account of an angelic intercession witnessed by the women. Talking to some Christians i’ve been told that it’s possible this angelic intercession did occur but was simply left out of the three other Gospels because each Gospel writer was focusing on a different aspect. They said that there was room for this descent of an angel to fit within the three Gospel’s account but looking into it, I see none. In Mark 16:4 it says “But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, HAD been rolled away”. The use of the word “had” in this indicates that the stone had already been moved before they looked up even. It did not say they looked up and the stone began moving or was moving, they said that it HAD moved. Moving to Luke we see the same thing we saw in Mark. Luke 24:2 says that “They found the stone rolled away from the tomb” as in once they arrived they saw the stone was already removed from the entrance. Another example within Luke to support the idea that the women had not seen this angelic event described in Matthew is Luke 24:4 which says “While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them”. It’s impossible for the women to have seen the angel move the stone, go in and wonder “hmmm who moved the stone?” if they just saw it get moved. This would also negate the idea that the two men in white “suddenly” appeared as it would contradict the idea that the women had already seen the angel roll away the tomb. Finally in John 20:1 it says that “Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance”. Mary saw that the stone HAD been removed, not “was being removed”, HAD been removed. The event had already happened and she missed it. It’s impossible for the events of Matthew 28 and the rest of the Gospel accounts to be congruent in that sense.

Onto the two other major, but, relevant to the topic of the tomb stone being rolled away, lesser points in this post: The existence of an Earthquake in Matthew and whether or not they ladies told anyone. In Matthew 28: 2 it says that there was a “violent earthquake” when the angel descended onto Jesus’(pbuh) tomb. It’s hard to fathom that such a, quote, “violent” geological event just happened to be left out, or found to be unimportant in 3 out of the 4 Gospel accounts. The ground beneath these women’s feet literally shook “violently” yet it was not a significant enough detail to mention in any other Gospel ? Though this is not an extremely strong evidence, ig is still a point of interest since it would have been such a massive event to witness and experience.

Finally, in Mark it’s reported that the women left and told no one what they saw. But in the other 3 Gospels it’s said the women rushed to the tell the people. This doesn’t need much proof as the women either did tell people or they did not, you cannot have both within this situation. The accounts differ exactly on this matter and it is an interesting point. Mark quite literally said in 16:8 that the women “ said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid”.

The idea of being able to pray to a god who will listen and make positive changes in your life has no practical application or the slightest bit of evidence. I understand people gain a lot of comfort and purpose from this concept, which is good - but this forum is debating the truth and existence of God.

There is no feasible explanation of how such communications can occur - in the same way that the laws of nature and science don't permit me to read the mind of a person on the other side of the world at any given moment. The only way that God can do these things is through his prescribed omni-everything nature - which again just opens up so many questions and inconsistencies. This point is important, (and I think it gets forgotten on this subreddit) that Theists carry the burden of proof in these debates. If I claimed tomorrow that there is an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving yet unrevealing donkey controlling the outcomes of March Madness you would say: 'Prove it'. I then can't say - 'This donkey is unprovable through any observation, disprove it'.

It is also a selfish concept - to believe that because you prayed to get a good score on a test, or for your grandma to gain good health, or for you to become happier and then all these things happen - that this is due to a god. It implies that you believe you are the center of the universe, and the creator of this universe has time to help you out every day. It also is unempathetic and completely ignores the millions of people in 3rd world countries who pray to that same god every day and are neglected. It implies that you are more worthy, chosen or blessed. All three of which are self-indulgent and hypocritical terms - how can your god be all-loving, when he doesn't love non-believers or those who are disadvantaged. That's what makes me angry about religion.

Thesis: atheists and theists alike in this subreddit that resort to dismissive tactics instead of engaging or asking further questions ironically come off as more bad faith than the individuals they refuse to reply to.

So I keep hearing this similar comment being thrown around the subreddit. OP makes a fairly lengthy post -> someone gives a critique-> OP or another refuse to engage and say that this individual just "didn't understand the post. Try again and actually read over it this time."

From my perspective, this is entirely counter to the purpose of debate. I understand that OP might perceive this individual as potentially bad faith, and so understandably might not want to engage with them, but just shoeing them away isn't helping either. If a student is struggling with math, would a teacher just tell them to "read the book again and pay more attention", or would they maybe ask some basic questions first to understand where the confusion is coming from? "Well, what part is confusing to you?", "Do you know how to set up the problem?, "How did you get your answer for part A? Explain to me your thought process.", etc.

So having said that, from an epistemological perspective, if OP or another is claiming to *know with certainty* that this person *did not* understand the post, why try to avoid their criticism so much? Right then and there, you are given the perfect platform to better articulate your thesis and to make your argument stronger, but instead, the default is to assume that the other person is at fault and you have no obligation to clarify?

There have been *so many* occasions where I am arguing with someone, only to realize that there was a fundamental misunderstanding of a certain word at least 5 replies ago. If only I had known that they didn't understand what I was talking about! Why do these people speak with so much conviction that the other individual is misunderstanding them, and yet still find no value in asking why they don't understand?

The way I see it, there are two options: If you really believe this person is bad faith you can either ignore them completely, or at the very least ask some general questions to probe their understanding and see if they actually reevaluate their position or just completely fold and resort to ad hom, etc. before their comment gets deleted. If you refuse to find clarity out of their confusion & misunderstanding, it just gives the impression that you don't care much about defending your position.

I feel so bad for hijabi women. They are being denied even the most basic and yet meningful pleasures that life has to offer. It's cruel. Please, imagine going out and not even being able to feel the refreshing night breeze, ever so gently blowing through your hair, caressing it as you stand in its embrace, feeling the most human you could ever feel. Being stripped of this fundemental birthright is such an insult to your existence. It's these little things that make life worth living.

What's worse is that they are socially conditined and indoctrinated from a young age to believe that this archaic lifestyle is their own choice.

As some of you may know, Hellenism is today a cultural movement which is trying to riassemble and modernize the cults of the ancient greco-romano gods. I'm someone who believes something can be definitely done about it, especially after the Association Pietas built in Italy and the acknowledgement from the Greece of Hellenism as a "known religion", and i'm not really angry at people who don't believe it will have a come out, it's natural as it is not a big religion yet and so this can lead them to thinking those things. What makes me furious is meeting certain religious people who costantly doubt the morals and theology of hellenism just for them to give their religion the golden top spot, or people who demonize the gods of others, and unluckily, these people i've met were all christians.

It's not something that never happens in Christinaity, actually it's a common thing due to the history of the religion and the antropological history of the abrahamic God, even if there are some christians who will tollerate this cult (i've met them too) you cannot deny in front of numerous experiences from neo-pagan communities and other modern religions that Christianity has a lot of dogmatic and fanatic people.

In conclusion, what should one do if they meet a dogmatic person insulting and trying to discuss their hellenic religion?

For those of you not familiar, Last Thursdayism is the belief that everything that exists, popped into existence Last Thursday. Any and everything, including you memories of everything from before last Thursday. Any history that existed before last Thursday all of it.

The similarity to other religions comes form the fact that it is not falsifiable. You cannot prove Last Thursdayism wrong. Any argument or evidence brought against it can be explained as just coming into existence in its current form last Thursday.

This is true of basically any belief system in my opinion. For example in Christianity, any evidence brought against God is explained as either false or the result of what God has done, therefore making in impossible to prove wrong.

Atheism and Agnosticism are different in the fact that if you can present a God, and prove its existence, that they are falsifiable.

Just curious on everyone's thoughts. This is a bit of a gross simplification, but it does demonstrate the simplicity of belief vs fact.

So I had a discussion with u/WeighTheEvidence2 the other day, and its been on my mind.

So from my understanding, the quran refers Christians/Jews to the injeel and Torah.

We have very good evidence to know exactly what the Jews/Christians had in their posession in the 7th century (the Torah and Gospel we use today). However the quran also specifies that these books were sent down to Moses and Jesus, respectively.

Jews/Christians do not believe they were sent down, but instead, written by the prophets and/or witnesses.

So the argument is that by definition, the quran can't be referring to the Torah or the Gospel that the Jews and Christians had in their possession, during the 7th century. And yes, I do see the sense in this.

So, if they are not the Torah/Gospel that they had in their posession in the 7th century - the following questions need to be considered:

●Which books is the quran referring the Jews and Christians to?

● Do we have any evidence of another 'Torah' or 'injeel' which they had in the 7th century?

●Is there evidence of the 'injeel' from the 1st century? (Happy to consider secondary sources within the 1st and early 2nd century).

The reason these are important to consider, is because this opens up 2 possibilities:

a) the quran is referring to the Torah/Gospel they had in their posession, which both contradict the quran.

b) the quran is referring Jews/Christians to books, that as far as I'm aware, lack evidence of existence. And, were not used by Christians/Jews of the 7th century.This would be illogical.

Please see 3 quran verses below for reference:

Surah Al-Maidah (5:68): "Say, 'O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.'

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:41): "And believe in what I have sent down confirming that which is [already] with you, and be not the first to disbelieve in it. And do not exchange My signs for a small price, and fear [only] Me."

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:89): And when there came to them a Book [i.e., the Qur’ān] from Allāh confirming that which was with them - although before they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieved - but [then] when there came to them that which they recognized, they disbelieved in it; so the curse of Allāh will be upon the disbelievers.

Cheers lads, appreciate anyone who takes the time to respond.

I think we all agree that true religion should be meant for all mankind and not just a specific race.

Judaism has the concept of the "chosen people" of God, as the Jews are regarded as his special people because they are the descendents of prophet Israel (Israel is one of the prophet Jacob's names).

And for that reason, they do not seek out converts because you cannot become a first-class Jew unless your mother is a Jew, so you will always be regarded as a second-class Jew if you convert, and let us not forget that Moses was sent only for the people of Israel.

as Moses says in Deuteronomy 5:1:

"Moses summoned all Israel and said:

Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. ^(2) The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. ^(3) It was not with our ancestors that the Lord made this covenant, but with us"

and many other verses of the Old Testament that have Moses only addressing the people of Israel.

Now for Christianity, correct me if I'm wrong, but they should also believe in that concept because they believe in the Old Testament, but similarly, Jesus only addresses the people of Israel in his teachings in the Bible, like:

Matthew 15:24
"But he (Jesus) answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Mark 12:29
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one"

So Moses and Jesus were meant only for the people of Israel. Also, when I ask Christians where Jesus grew up, they usually say he grew up in a Jewish family and was Jewish, so in other words, are you saying "God is Jewish."? 

This makes no sense at all for God to have a religion in the first place because God does not have a god, and that contradicts the fact that religion is supposed to be a way to worship God, so the notion of God having a religion, let alone a specific race and color, will undeniably cause racism.

Meanwhile, in Islam, it is specifically mentioned that Moses and Jesus were sent only to the people of Israel, and the last prophet, Prophet Muhammad, was sent for all mankind.

Quran 21:107
"And We have not sent you, [O Muḥammad], except as a mercy to the worlds."

Quran 49:13
"O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allāh is the most righteous^(1) of you. Indeed, Allāh is Knowing and Aware."

And in Prophet Muhammad's last speech shortly before his death, he said:
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; a white has no superiority over a black, nor does a black have any superiority over a white; none have superiority over another except by piety and good action."

This last message shows the unity and brotherhood that all mankind should have and is meant for all children of Adam, not the children of Israel or any other prophet. So as the children of Adam, we should not be racist to anyone, nor should we be divided according to race or other things like nationalism,

which causes a lot of racism because people are taking pride in their nationality as well, and that causes racism against people in a way they have no control over, like the nation they are born in, not just other factors like race or skin color, which they also have no control over. I can only imagine a world with no racism and all humans united as brothers and sisters.

When I talk to my mom, it eventually leads to Christianity. I feel she is so obtuse and absurd for loving Jesus but accepting a religion that believes in hell. Since I would be unwilling to enter heaven, due to my empathy for those burning in hell, does not that make me a much, much better person than the version of Christ Christians worship?

If I die and go to hell, my mom will happily enter heaven. If I die and am about to enter heaven, but find out that my mom is in hell, I would refuse to enter.

Doesn't that mean that i'm like, way, way, way nicer and better than my mom? I don't understand how that isn't easy to see.

Mods: I am NOT talking about the problem of evil in this thread, I'm only talking about free will and the free will theodicy. I see that the POE is banned today. 🙈

First, some terms.

The free will theodicy proposes that humans have the capacity for evil because free will is a good unto itself such that the potential for evil introduced into the system as a result does not outweigh the goodness that having free will provides.

Of course, there are many objections to this theodicy. I actually don't really care about any of those. I'm much more interested in whether or not we actually have free will. Not much of a theodicy if we don't, right? So, pertinent definitions:

Free will: The ability to choose one's actions, or determine what reasons are acceptable motivation for actions, without predestination, fate etc.

I'm using this definition because it seems like it's the most appropriate for this topic. There are also these two, which imply compatibilism:

"A person's natural inclination; unforced choice." and "The power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies."

More on this later.

Determinism - a person's actions are totally determined by previous events, because all events are determined by previous events.

Libertarianism - a person has free will if their actions are not totally determined by previous events (usually because randomness or chance introduces uncertainty).

Compatibilism (1) - even if their actions are totally determined by previous events, a person has free will so long as they are acting according to their desires.

Compatiblism (1) allows the "could not have done otherwise" of determinism and insists free will lies elsewhere.

OR

Compatiblism (2) - even if most events are totally determined by previous events, people with free will still have agency: their actions are not totally determined by previous events.

Compabilism (2) denies the "could not have done otherwise" of determinism altogether.

These two aren't quite mutually exclusive, but it's still useful to think of them separately, at least at the start.

I'm fine with amending these definitions, btw.

I don't want to get too wordy here, so I'm going to do a brief overview of my thoughts on these two compatibilisms, which blend a bit together when you start squinting, and I'll leave the particulars to the comments.

I think compatibilism (1)'s flaw is that it just gives up the idea of free will altogether. Think of a program. A program has input, logic to process that input, and output. The program itself has no control over the input, the logic it employs on the input, or the output, same as the "agent" on this notion of compatibilism.

Here, the input is the circumstances the person finds themselves under, the processing logic are the desires which take that input and pass on an action to be taken, and the output is the action taking place. None of that is under the person's control, just like none of it is under the control of the program.

This seems like pretending at free will, and I don't find it compelling. We don't say the program has free will, so why would we say the person does? I think highlighting this issue deals with the alternative definitions of free will I brought up above, as well.

In compatibilism (2), we're saying that even if determinism is true for most things, it's not true for the actions of free will agents. So, if an action an agent takes is free, it's not determined by the events that occurred previously.

Okay, so then there must be something provably different about the actions of a person which enables that freedom. Enter the soul, here (probably). Note though, above I said provably different. And I'd be fine with just proving beyond a reasonable doubt. But I think the compatibilist will be hard-pressed to clear even that hurdle, so this appears to be just an assertion and I'm fine to just retreat back to determinism, which compatibilist (2) acknowledges elsewhere but denies for the "agents" in question.

Because compatibilism isn't compelling and we aren't libertarians, I don't think the free will theodicy really solves the issue of evil. I know I didn't talk about evil here (because this thread isn't about the POE), and I find the challenge to compatibilism more compelling than arguing about the specifics of the POE or of the theodicy.

TLDR: I don't find compatibilism compelling and would like to be taught the error of my ways. I could make more wordy arguments here, but I'm sure we can iron it out in the comments.

I’ve recently embarked on a journey to explore different perspectives on the existence of God, specifically through literature that uses scientific evidence to argue for or against the concept of God. However, as someone who is not a scientist, I find myself questioning the utility of reading these books.

On one hand, these books offer a wealth of information and can provide valuable insights into the intersection of science and religion. On the other hand, without a deep understanding of the various scientific fields these books delve into, I wonder if I’m truly grasping the arguments being made or if I’m merely accepting the author’s interpretation of the science.

Furthermore, I recognize that no one, not even a scientist, can be an expert in every field of science. This leads me to question whether it’s worth investing time in reading these books, given the potential for misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

In addition to this, I’m also interested in finding books that purely discuss science and are universally accepted in their scientific accuracy. I believe such books could serve as a solid foundation for understanding the science referenced in theistic and atheistic literature.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this matter. Is there value in reading scientific arguments in theistic and atheistic literature for non-scientists? Are there any universally accepted scientific books you would recommend?

I find this often is a reply I get to any objection I give to a religious argument. The person goes straight into an analogy.

Your analogy is largely useless. An analogy is only useful in communicating an idea that has not yet been understood or is difficult to understand. I am fully aware of how your idea works. I still disagree with it, and when I give you the reasons why, an analogy is incapable of solving those issues.

Example:

Apologist: God has a plan for all the things going on. It's like giving your child vaccinations, they don't understand the pain they're enduring, but you do understand as a parent.

Me: Yes, I understand vaccinations because I've read the literature on how they work, their efficacy and value. Can you present evidence that support's "God's plan".

Apologist: You see, it's like a heroin addict who has to go through the dark times in order to find the good times.

Me: You aren't presenting evidence that God has a plan, nor that this plan is good.

In this exchange, the apologist did not address my concern. They gave a second analogy. The analogy is useless here. I already understood the first analogy, and I am pointing out the exact parts of where it works and how I know the analogy works and what it is explaining. I understand the argument.

An analogy is okay.... but you must complete the analogy and present all the same variables in the argument without using the analogy.

Apologists rely on analogies to convince you that because something else is true, and they've structured their argument to follow in a similar form, therefore evidence is unnecessary.

Do you accept arguments from analogy?

Edit: I am not replying to posts who that explain what an analogy is or link the Wikipedia article on analogies.

I believe that God as an omnipotent being realized that omnipotence and immortality are not the ultimate state of existence and came to the conclusion that non-existence is. However two things separated him from this goal. His ''body'' and his mind (or consciousness). Thus he had to fragment/split himself in order to achieve this goal.

While doing so, I believe two things are possible:

1. He split himself creating the universe, which would explain the Big Bang. From then, the timeline of the universe and humanity can just follow the scientific theory.
2. He created the universe and the Earth beforehand and by splitting himself he only created humanity.

In both of these scenarios, because of the fragmentation there is a piece of God in every human on earth. This grants us free will, consciousness, and for some it can create so called visions of god or religious beliefs, which in this case would just be subconsciously channeling our inner God. Different religions can be explained by different environment and cultures we grow up in. And atheism can be explained by our religious subconsciousness not being that prevalent.

The question the becomes what is the ultimate goal for us humans. Regarding this, there are in my opinion 3 possibilities:

1. Nothing - this is quite nihilistic + it ties to more of an atheistic belief, but basically we have no ultimate goal and we each create our own meaning etc. etc. God in this case had no plans for us.
2. Immediate non-existence - this one is the darkest option as it opts to follow God's way of believing that non-existence is indeed better than existence or even omnipotence and thus we should make ourselves not-exist (by any means necessary)
3. Ultimate non-existence - here we do not blindly follow God's thinking but we opt to eventually become God ourselves. Forming one collective being/consciousness from all humans on Earth. We could then (as God) decide to not exist, which would perpetuate the cycle, creating another humanity on Earth.

I admit that this line of thinking is quite hard to disprove, because similarly to conventional religions it has only a small basis in real tangible evidence, and is more about abstract belief. But in my opinion it could explain all the different religions around the world, the several different scriptures and also all reported visions of God, that people have and a lot of other things.

Thank you for reading. I am interested in what others think :)

I might add that this hypothesis is a bit based on the philosophy of Philipp Mainländer, but with some caveats added.

Edit: thanks for the -66 karma everyone, means a lot ;)

Essentially, us humans bickering and arguing over the topic has turned the idea of god and religion into a social construct rather an individual belief system. Religion has always been and will remain one thing, what becomes of you on a personal scale after this life passes. Unfortunately we’ve taken that and harnessed its power to force decisions and justify actions.

It’s not very hard to accept religion if you remove yourself from the picture. Plants, animals, planets and stars have existed before us, exist with us and will continue existing after us. Humans are simply a tiny blip among the whole wide universe. Thinking that god doesn’t exist would be the same as if a cat thought god doesn’t exist, you’d just laugh at the cat rather than lecture it, torture it, make fun of it, etc,. That is because you think of it as a measly cat, a small domesticated creature, its opinion is unimportant as it would not make any difference to life itself but her own life (not trying to say that picking a religion won’t ultimately impact the choices you make in life in turn actually impacting what goes on around you).

Humans, simply, are the most capable creatures for lack of a better word. We managed to adapt better to our world compared to other creatures which, alongside our efficient use of tools, allowed us domination over a global scale. That doesn’t make the world ours, let alone the universe. We remain insignificant in the bigger picture regardless of all that we accomplished.

While what I’m saying might sound contradictory (and goes against my own faith somewhat), it still is logical. Believing in god would directly affect you and you only, hence arguing there isn’t a god would gain you nothing. You would need a motive to argue there isn’t a god, a motive that drives you to impact others rather than yourself because in the end if you were a goody two shoes and lived life straight you won’t be the reason a murderer goes to heaven, neither will you go to hell for that murderer’s wrongdoings.

At its core, religion is like politics, in that there’s always a populist aspect designed to appeal the masses, and one that is - I dare to say - esoteric, better understood by intellectuals.

There’s Saint Augustine and saint Thomas Aquinas, but there’s also the Holy Mary that somehow appears in Lourdes and warns us about the impending disaster.

There’s Buddha and his teachings on the duality, but there is also the Pure Land where you need to say Namo Amitaba and you’re good to go.

Such divide can only accentuate the difference between social classes and establishes a lower class - the main target of these less sophisticated ideas - and an upper class - the custodians of the faith. I would not say that religion is responsible for inequality, but certainly it doesn’t seem to work against it. As a human product, it goes along our nature, where inequality seems to be part of it.

One recommendation from the mod summit was that we have our weekly posts actively encourage discussion that isn't centred around the content of the subreddit. So, here we invite you to talk about things in your life that aren't religion!

Got a new favourite book, or a personal achievement, or just want to chat? Do so here!

P.S. If you are interested in discussing/debating in real time, check out the related Discord servers in the sidebar.

This is not a debate thread. You can discuss things but debate is not the goal.

The subreddit rules are still in effect.

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

If someone lives an almost sinless life, and doesn't have a personal experience, and therefore uses logic and turns atheist, they will not go to heaven. However , if someone does have a personal experience, they convert and hence achieve heaven. Therefore god is discriminating who will be allowed into heaven, and deciding not to allow others into heaven. Therefore, if there is a god, and a random selection of people have personal experiences that lead to salvation, that god cannot be omnibenevolent else everyone would have them. Edited to clarify it

I mean to say that this universe is as infinitely horrible as any universe could possibly be, and it's infinitely greater than any universe could possibly be.

Satan suffering the conscious death of all beings ever, the destruction of the Earth and the Heavens/Universe itself, an eternal Lake of Fire.

God receiving his harvest, basking in eternal bliss and glory in his heavenly throne forever and ever.

The smoke of the torment of Hell rising to Heaven for all of eternity.

It would be absolutely metaphysically, physically, and spiritually impossible for the two extremes to be any more extreme.

Thesis: Tom Holland – Modern-day atheists owe their worldview, especially concerning morals and ethics, to Christianity.

Argument: This argument largely repeats the points made by renown British historian Tom Holland, who is personally an atheist. It also posits that atheists subconsciously adopt a Christian moral and ethical framework, when alternative ones do exist, such as Nietzsche’s “noble-warrior” framework could be adopted instead. This makes most arguments by atheists, especially against Christian theodicy, is rather ironic, hypocritical and futile.

This sub is dominated by atheist voices who criticise religion, but Christianity in particular. Many – maybe most – arguments attack religion, and Christianity in particular, on the basis of theodicy. That a supposedly good all-powerful god would not allow suffering and evil to occur.

The major problem with those attacks is they presuppose a Christian moral framework as to what good and evil even are, but which the atheist debater usually takes for granted. As Tom Holand explains in a 2016 article:

‘“Every sensible man,” Voltaire wrote, “every honourable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.” Rather than acknowledge that his ethical principles might owe anything to Christianity, he preferred to derive them from a range of other sources – not just classical literature, but Chinese philosophy and his own powers of reason. Yet Voltaire, in his concern for the weak and ­oppressed, was marked more enduringly by the stamp of biblical ethics than he cared to admit. His defiance of the Christian God, in a paradox that was certainly not unique to him, drew on motivations that were, in part at least, recognisably Christian.

“We preach Christ crucified,” St Paul declared, “unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.” He was right. Nothing could have run more counter to the most profoundly held assumptions of Paul’s contemporaries – Jews, or Greeks, or Romans. The notion that a god might have suffered torture and death on a cross was so shocking as to appear repulsive. Familiarity with the biblical narrative of the Crucifixion has dulled our sense of just how completely novel a deity Christ was. In the ancient world, it was the role of gods who laid claim to ruling the universe to uphold its order by inflicting punishment – not to suffer it themselves.

Today, even as belief in God fades across the West, the countries that were once collectively known as Christendom continue to bear the stamp of the two-millennia-old revolution that Christianity represents. It is the principal reason why, by and large, most of us who live in post-Christian societies still take for granted that it is nobler to suffer than to inflict suffering. It is why we generally assume that every human life is of equal value. In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian.’

And in a 2023 interview about Nietzsche, Holland would explain:

“Nietzsche would consider today’s atheists as basically Christian… There is a sense in which atheism which is the atheism that doesn’t repudiate the kind of ethics, moral and values of Christianity, is simply the logical endpoint of a trajectory of within Protestantism… The New Atheist movement is still cleaving to fundamental Christian ideas”.

For those who may forget, Nietzsche considered Christianity essentially a “slave religion” that had turned ancient morality upside-down. What atheists consider “good” and “evil” is essentially a replication of Christian beliefs. They are not a reflection of how most humans in history viewed morality. Ancient Greeks and Romans would not complain about the death and suffering of the poor or weak, but extol that as a virtue of strength over weakness.

For those who listen to the Rest is History Podcast, one will note Prof. Holland often brings up this point about the hypocrisy of modern western atheism.

The punchline being, as Tom Holland rightly exposes, understanding modern western atheism’s own fundamentally Christian character, one can see most arguments by atheists, especially against Christian theodicy, is rather ironic, hypocritical and futile. A modern atheist can complain there is no evidence for a supernatural being, but most tangential attacks on Christianity on the basis of morality and ethics have no real basis.

Today’s atheist argument is the fallacy Christian apologist C. S. Lewis long complained about:

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

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2016/09/tom-holland-why-i-was-wrong-about-christianity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Agg6RLgm5E

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/359349-my-argument-against-god-was-that-the-universe-seemed-so

Lucifer's fall was because he planned to totally forgive anyone for sinning and still allow them back into heaven. That's more kind and forgiving than God. That's Jesus level stuff. In fact Jesus appears to be god realizing he was wrong and giving everyone the chance to get back into heaven after sinning.

So basically lucifer was cast down, then god stole his whole idea and took credit for it.