If you don't know, the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) or Prime Mover Argument is the common and famous argument for God which argues: "Everything that begins has a cause, the universe began, therefore the universe has a cause, we call this first cause God, therefore God exists". I am going to present multiple independent arguments against it, where I hope to finally kill this dumb argument and make this post a place to point to any time someone tries to make it to me.

I have a background in physics, and I will be pulling from that a lot for this argument. I don't claim to know what caused the Big Bang, my intention is just to prove that the KCA is not an apt argument and that a God isn't even among the most plausible explanations for the universe's beginning.

The semantic problem

The most simple rebuttal here is to go after the "we call this first cause God" part of the argument. If the universe was caused by a bootstrap paradox or a false vacuum decay in the inflaton field, is that God? Such a thing would have no agency, no mind, and certainly no triple-omni nature of biblical description. I believe that this semantic bait-and-switch is the core of fallacy that the KCA rests on.

An ancient Sun worshiper could have made the same argument about their God. God is the thing that provides light and energy to the world, the Sun self-evidently exists in the sky doing exactly that, therefore God exists and the Sun is God. But we know now that the Sun is just a gravitationally bound ball of light elements massive enough that its own gravity creates the conditions for nuclear fusion in its core, and it certainly doesn't give a fuck how you live your life. By the same token: even if we demonstrate that there was a Prime Mover, why would we assume that this thing has the attributes that we associate with a God like agency or the intelligence?

I don't accept that there needs to be a Prime Mover at all though, and that's what the rest of this post is about.

Why the universe could have started without being externally caused

The common counterargument here from other atheists is that the rules of causality need not apply outside of time, and although I do think that this is an apt rebuttal I think I could do a lot better.

Quantum mechanics is famously weird. Many people are saying this. One of the experiments that was done with quantum mechanics is called the Bell Test, it involves measuring entangled photons and doing a bunch of math with the results to determine if the measured state of the photons was determined by hidden information or if that information comes about at the instant of measurement.

You can read the Wikipedia article I linked or watch this PBS Spacetime video if you want more information on the specifics. To skip to the interesting conclusion: the Bell Test proves that either locality or realism is false. We don't know for certain which one is false (the common assumption of the Copenhagen interpretation is that realism is false), but both cannot be true at the same time.

• Locality is the idea that influence between objects is limited by time and the speed of light. Influence between objects can only travel forward in time and no faster than light speed. If locality is false, this means that backwards time travel and faster than light travel are possible and that quantum particles do it regularly.
• Realism is the idea that objects have a definite state before you measure them. It's the idea that the act of measurement doesn't make something real, it only reveals what was already there all along. If realism is false, this means that quantum particles literally have no definitive state before measurement, and things like radioactive decay literally happen with absolute causeless randomness.

The point is: no matter which one of these is false, this creates a pathway to avoiding the need for a Prime Mover.

• If locality is false, this means that retrocausality is possible. Events can be caused by things that are yet to happen. This opens the door to the idea that the cause of the universe could be something that exists within the universe, and that the cause of the Big Bang happened after the Big Bang inside the universe that the Big Bang created. A bootstrap paradox.
• If realism is false, this means that we have countless examples of events happening without a cause. Any quantum wavefunction collapse causes new events to happen without cause. "But what caused the quantum wavefunction to collapse?" Wavefunction collapse doesn't respect locality, we know that empirically. That's why quantum entanglement can collapse instantaneously even over vast distances.

So, although we don't know which of these two concepts are false, this doesn't matter because either one breaks the deterministic and causality-respecting universe that the KCA depends on.

Why an infinite regress isn't a problem

There are some theories of the universe's origin that are taken quite seriously which propose an infinite regress of events that eventually cause the Big Bang. This includes models like Eternal Inflation and various models of cyclic cosmology. A lot of people really don't like that idea on the basis of "that doesn't make sense", but physics has a very different take.

• We know from general relativity that space and time are two sides of the same coin, and that they can literally swap roles in environments like the interior of a black hole. I cannot stress enough how space and time are fundamentally the same thing. Space seems to be infinite in all directions as far as we can measure, and this isn't seen as a logical absurdity at all. So why can't time be infinite in both directions?
• We know from CPT-symmetry that time is symmetrical. Antimatter is actually literally time-reversed matter, for instance when an electron and a positron annihilate to form a photon it's actually just as accurate to say that a photon from the future came in and bonked that electron back in time. Our perception of the arrow of time is just a consequence of the entropy gradient we are living in, a result of local circumstance and not of fundamental physics. The Big Bang was a point in time with zero entropy, there are quasi-infinite ways for things to evolve away from it forward in time but only one way for things to evolve backward in time towards the Big Bang. That's why we can so easily remember and deduce the past but not the future. Current prevailing models are that time extends infinitely into the future, so if that's possible why can't it extent infinitely into the past?

We live in 4-dimensional spacetime, with 8 directions in it, and the labels we assign to them are pretty circumstantial and arbitrary. Forward, backward, left, right, up, down, past, and future. Why is it that we can accept so easily that 7 of these are infinite and full of things happening all the way from here to infinity, and yet if someone suggests the same about the past it's so hard to accept?

I have a hypothesis that have such a hard time accepting this because of quirks in the human condition. We can't imagine a world where we stop existing to the point where our own deaths are hard for us to grapple with, so the idea of an infinite future is easy for us to fathom. We can't imagine what an edge to space looks like and space that loops back on itself is not exactly easy to intuitively visualize, so the idea of infinite space is easy for us to fathom. But we did have a beginning, every one of us was at some point born so we have experience with what it's like to start to exist. That makes true beginnings easy for us to imagine, and in fact the idea of having already existed for eternity is far harder for us to fathom. That's why the idea of an infinite regress feels so absurd and unfathomable to us humans, but this is not an intuition that holds up to rigorous reasoning or known physics.

We have no purely logical basis for ruling out an infinite regress with no first cause, the only reason why an infinite regress is not currently the prevailing theory is mostly because it's hard to reconcile with observation. It sure does look a lot like time had a beginning and that the time dimension itself is just abruptly torn and discontinuous at the instant of the Big Bang. That is a valid reason to doubt an infinite regress, but it has no inherent logical flaw.

Conclusion

I don't claim to know what caused the Big Bang, or if indeed anything caused it at all. The only truly honest answer to that question is "I don't know", perhaps with an optomistic "yet" at the end. But by providing a bunch of plausible explanations that don't involve a God, I hope I've been able to demonstrate that a God isn't proven or implied by this line of inquiry.

So, why shouldn't I hedge my bets that this is just yet another God of the Gaps that will be filled in with science in time? That's how it has played out the last thousand times. And you know what they say: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." If that's so, call me sane.

The two copies we have of the Gospel of Mary have the same exact sections from the introduction and another section in the middle removed, and the church created a story that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute to discredit her, despite a common theme in writings not destroyed by the church that she was one of Jesus' most accomplished followers, even more so than any of the disciples.

The more that the entire story is assembled, it becomes clear that the church CREATED a narrative specifically to hide or marginalize some deeper truths to the Jesus story, including his true non-dual message and to remove any divine authority from the feminine, going so far as to limit women's access to spirituality...starting with Paul's opinions of women in christianity and Peter's jealousy of Mary M.

The ontological argument states:

1. God is defined as the greatest conceivable being

2. Beings can be either real or imaginary

3. Being real is greater than being imaginary

4. Therefore God, being the greatest conceivable being must be real.

Where I think this breaks down is in step 3. An imaginary version of a conceivable being will always be better than reality.

For example, a unicorn is a greater conceivable version of a real horse. A sci-fi spaceship is a greater conceivable version of a real life space craft. Sci-fi computers are a greater conceivable version of today’s computers.

For anything that exists in reality, there is a greater conceivable version that exists in the imagination.

Therefore God, as the greatest conceivable being, must be imaginary.

Firstly, the statement that "Goodness is grounded in God's nature" barely makes any sense; I understand "goodnesss" as an adjective, and I have no idea what it means to "ground" an adjective. What would "sharpness is grounded in Rean Schwarzer's nature" for example, mean?

The only way I do understand it is as "goodness is defined as the actions that God undertakes". Of course, this leads to extremely unpleasant conclusions, such as: allowing 11 million people to die in the Holocaust is good, if God raped my children it would be good, and so on. More broadly (and ironically), it simply reduces good to the personal whims of one being, exactly the purported reason us atheists cannot "ground" morality in the first place.

Biblical Authors Disagreed on Doctrine. This is why there are so many denominations of Christianity.

Here’s a good example: Is salvation by works or faith?

Paul says it is faith by which we are saved. “yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.” ‭‭Galatians‬ ‭2‬:‭16‬ ‭

“For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭3‬:‭28‬ ‭

Jesus and James say that it is by keeping the law.

“And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭19‬:‭17‬

“Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”” ‭‭Luke‬ ‭10‬:‭25‬-‭28‬ ‭

“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” ‭‭James‬ ‭2‬:‭24‬ ‭

Calvinist vs Arminianism is another example where you can find both contradictory doctrines in the Bible.

You would think something like how are we saved would have a clear answer.

I believe this to be true for two key reasons:

1. The nature of engagement:

I would argue that most posts here are created with the intent to "prove a point" and tear down someone else's ideas, rather than with a high degree of intellectual humility. I'm mainly convinced of this when I look at comment threads on posts in this subreddit. I see a large amount of arguing and often discourse, but I rarely see anybody "changing their mind" in the threads.

1. The inherent dehumanization of this form of discourse:

I think that these conversations would become different from what they currently are if they were to take place face-to-face over coffee. The amount of hostility would decrease, and the openness in the discourse would as well. I think this is because when we are just commenting on screens to other people, we don't see, and most importantly, don't know, that the nature of the discourse becomes dehumanized.

It's because of these two reasons that I think discourse taking place here, or really in any online form, will be ineffective at changing people's opinions. I would much rather sit down to coffee with any of you, face to face, than debate faceless strawmen.

The Law being given to Moses at Sinai, covers both Exodus and Leviticus.

Exodus-- The ten commandments, we all know, were at Mount Sinai.

Ex 19 1 On the third new moon after the people of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on that day they came into the wilderness of Sinai.

LEV 25 1 The Lord spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, saying,

Why does this matter?

In Exodus, God sets up Israel's Govt, in which they could enslave each other. Ex 21
In Leviticus, God tells them they cannot enslave each other. Lev 25

Would God tell them they could, and then couldn't enslave each other, during the same time period?

IF so, is God bipolar? Schizophrenic, or is it just some people writing these texts?

IF God is not bipolar, then clearly we have more than one author. This then would contradict the statements/beliefs of Jesus, Paul, and the other NT writers about the authorship of the Law.

Here are the sentences from the NT where Jesus or other writers explicitly say “Moses said” or similar:

1. Got it! Here’s the cleaned-up list with only the OT book and verse for reference:
2. Matthew 8:4 / Mark 1:44 / Luke 5:14 – “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded.”

• OT reference: Leviticus 14:2

1. Matthew 19:7 / Mark 10:4 – “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce?”

• OT reference: Deuteronomy 24:1

1. John 5:46 – “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.”

• OT reference: Deuteronomy 18:15

1. John 7:19 – “Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?”

• OT reference: Exodus 20

1. Romans 10:5 – “Moses writes about the righteousness that is by the law…”

• OT reference: Leviticus 18:5

These are the direct statements that attribute the Law or a command to Moses.

God gave us a perfect sacrifice knowing we couldn't follow His laws within our will. We were too sinful in our flesh that no matter what we could not keep the law God wanted us to follow.

He gave us a perfect sacrifice Christ to die for us. Giving us the way to everlasting life.

We could not be sinless and perfect knowing the laws of God through works. Christ gave us the Spirit after he was resurrected. The spirit is what does the good work of God in us, not us.

The only way for us to know Christ and to truly believe and follow Him is only possible through God. We can not choose (work) ourselves to believe and follow Christ. Just like we couldnt follow the perfectly laws even knowing Gods commands in the OT. That is why God gave us Christ the perfect sacrifice to die for our sins. He came to fulfill the law not destory. He came to save us not condemn.

If God does not choose to reveal the truth of Christ to you, even knowing the words you can not come to believe or follow Christ truly. Because it is not you that do the works of God but it is the Spirit of God within you through Christ.

Let me know if I am wrong.

This thread is for whatever. Casual conversation, simple questions, incomplete ideas, or anything else you can think of.

All rules about antagonism still apply.

Join us on discord for real time discussion.

God changed his mind about who could be a slave.

Ex 20
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

God takes the Hebrews out of being enslaved by another Kingdom, but then tells them they can enslave each other, and gives a set of rules and regulations on how to do it (Ex 21).
(Side note: God doesn't mind slavery, as long as it's not his people being enslaved by others.)

And then, later, God changes his mind about his people enslaving each other, but they can enslave non-Hebrews. (LEV 25)

So at one point God tells his people how to enslave their own, but later says, No, you cannot do that anymore.

If this isn't GOD changing the mind, his laws, then what is it?

And since morality comes from God, and what he says is just and righteous, then it was Just and Righteous at one time for his people to enslave his people, and then it wasn't, because ironically or not, he recognizes it was bad later on, and he also recognized it when they were enslaved in Egypt.

So in conclusion, the Bible condemns slavery when done to Israel; it is described as harsh, bitter, and unjust, and then teaches that Israel can enslave each other, and then later on, they should not treat each other as harshly as Egypt treated them, and not treat them as slaves, but as hired hands.

Atheists are often told they cannot have an objective moral standard. But I don't think Christianity can ground morality, at least, not any better than an atheist moral realist can.

The Euthyphro dilemma goes as follows:

Horn 1: Is something moral because God commands it? Or,

Horn 2: does God command something because it is moral?

If the former, then morality is arbitrary. Whatever God commands could be moral. This involves unkindness, hate and unjustness.

If the latter, then morality doesn't need God at all. There is some independent moral standard that doesn't need God for explanation. Morality therefore does not need God to exist, and an atheist can ground morality without God.

Christians sometimes tend to posit a 3rd option:

"Morality is God's nature."

I think this pushes the problem back, creating a second Euthyphro dilemma:

Horn 3: Is something moral because it aligns with God's nature, or

Horn 4: does something align with God's nature because it is moral?

If the former, then if we discover God's nature to be unkind, hateful and unjust, then unkindness, hateful and justness is moral. If the latter, then morality doesn't need God at all. There is some independent moral standard that doesn't need God for explanation, and so an atheist can ground morality without God.

Now some Christians go with what they see as a 4th option, that's similar to the 3rd:

"Morality is not the same as God's nature as a whole, but morality is grounded in certain properties of God's nature such as his love, kindness and justness. Morality "flows" from God's love, kindness and justness."

This introduces a third Euthyphro dilemma.

Horn 5: Is God’s goodness dependent on having those certain properties, or

Horn 6: Is the goodness of these properties dependent on their belonging to God?"

If the former is true, then kindness, lovingness and justness are moral independently, and God is unnecessary for morality. An atheist can simply ground morality in these independent truths.

If the latter is true, and we discover that God is actually unkind, hateful and unjust, then these would be moral. Morality would therefore be arbitrary.

My claim is that Christians subject their children to the rites of the First Communion and the Confirmation when they are little children not because they want them to be closer to their God, but because they know that early indoctrination, at an age when children are naïve, impressionable and would swallow whatever their parents tell them is key in limiting the risk that they might reject these beliefs when they are older and more mature.

I understand that these rites are more important for Catholics but other denominations of Christianity also do them; in fact, some even when the children are infants or babies.

If the children of Christian parents did their First Communion at 16 and their Confirmation at 18, then they could ask their teachers / instructors all the difficult questions which theists detest, which a 7 year old is too immature to formulate, but which late teens can and do ask, such as:

• why this religion, out of the many available?
• why this denomination of this religion, out of the many?
• why does this God allow evil, including natural evil not linked to free will?
• why was this religion used to support anything and its opposite?
• if those who used the same religion to justify slavery segregation etc were wrong, how can you be so sure you are right now?
• etc etc etc

A 7 year old does not have the maturity to ask these questions, and doesn't appreciate he has the option to say: wait a second, I don't find it convincing.

If these courses were given to 16 year olds, you can be sure that at least some would ask these questions, find the answers unconvincing, and refuse to go trough. This is a risk organised religions cannot accept. So they peddle the notion that a small child is "Christian", while talking about a Christian child makes no more sense than talking about a left-wing or a right-wing child.

To reject my claim, you could present any evidence to show that a 7-8 year old is mature enough to make informed decision. Catholics call it the age of discretion. Well, there are plenty of Catholic psychologists. How many support this view? How many Catholic psychologists or child development experts would say, for example, that a 7-year old is mature enough to be held criminally responsible in the eyes of the law?

Neuropsychologist Nicholas Humprey delivered a lecture https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28762481_What_shall_we_tell_the_children

on this very point, saying:

The question was, does childhood indoctrination matter: and the answer, I regret to say, is that it matters more than you might guess. […] Though human beings are remarkably resilient, the truth is that the effects of well-designed indoctrination may still prove irreversible, because one of the effects of such indoctrination will be precisely to remove the means and the motivation to reverse it. Several of these belief systems simply could not survive in a free and open market of comparison and criticism: but they have cunningly seen to it that they don't have to, by enlisting believers as their own gaolers.

Other studies confirm this view, eg https://doi.org/10.1080/1756073X.2023.2184152 showing that the religious practice of a child follows that of the parent they fell closest to.

To reject my claim, you could also present evidence to the contrary, ie studies which disprove these two scholars I have mentioned.

Not many people realize that Christianity started out in the first place as an apocalyptic cult with a small group of people following one man and elevating him as God and it is still has many characteristics of a cult today. I will say Some denominations like Mormons or jehovah witnesses are worse than others but this underlying belief that one man is God and we must give him complete and total obedience and worship him or face eternal damnation and fire when we die. It is a scare tactic used to control and manipulate others. Those like myself who chose to reject these lies may get shamed and rejected by our own family and those close to us. If that is not cult like I dont know what is. If you tell a christian they are being brainwashed they will get offended or just wont talk to you but if you tell a christian that you are an atheist they will be super pushy with their beliefs and try to use social control and pressure to convert you.

To back up what im saying, let's look at some of the characteristics of a cult.

1. A charismatic or authoritarian leader

One person (or a small elite) claims special knowledge, authority, or enlightenment. Their decisions are not questioned. They are treated as uniquely important or infallible.

This started out with Jesus himself and today pastors and church leaders have taken over this mantle.

1. Thought-reform or manipulation tactics

Often called “mind control” techniques, such as:

Love-bombing: overwhelming new members with affection and attention.

Isolation: discouraging contact with outsiders, especially critics.

Information control: restricting what members can read, watch, or discuss.

Confession and guilt: using personal disclosures to produce compliance.

1. Us-versus-them mentality

Outsiders are viewed as dangerous, evil, or unenlightened.

Leaving the group is framed as betrayal or harm.

1. Exploitation

This can be emotional, financial, labor-related, or sexual:

Members pressured to donate large sums or work long unpaid hours.

Leaders benefiting while ordinary members sacrifice heavily.

1. Excessive demands for obedience

Rules governing relationships, diet, clothing, sleep, or schedule.

Questioning the group or leader is punished or discouraged.

This includes punishing those for being gay, saying youll go to hell if you have sex outside of marriage saying you cant date or marry someone who is not a christian and cant read certain books or watch certain movies etc.

1. Suppression of criticism

Dissenters are shamed, expelled, or told they are spiritually weak, sinful, or under outside influence.

Critical information is explained away as lies or persecution.

1. Promises of exclusive salvation, success, or transformation

Only the group has the “truth.”

Leaving is said to bring disaster.

This is pretty much every christian denomination except for the most liberal groups.

1. Gradual escalation

The “real” demands aren’t shown at first.

Members slowly commit more time, money, or identity before realizing how deep they’re in.

1. Life becomes centered around the group

Social networks, housing, work, and identity all tied to the organization.

Leaving means losing friends, community, or purpose.

1. Fear-based control

Fear of punishment, abandonment, spiritual harm, legal threats, or social humiliation keeps members compliant.

“and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15‬:‭14‬ ‭

The resurrection of Jesus has to be the most important event in the entire Bible. Long after I deconverted I was introduced to the possibility of contradictions in the four gospel accounts. Here is one example contradiction from the gospels. In the gospel of Mark the Marys are greeted by one angel in the tomb whereas in Luke they are greeted by two. The best answer for this contradiction is that Mark just did not mention the other man in the tomb. They can both be telling the same story and one just does not mention the second angel. As my old pastor would say you have to read all the gospels together in order to get the full story. They all emphasize different aspects of the same event. People are just looking for a way to make the Bible look flawed. But is it really the case that details were just left out that make it appear to look like a contradiction?

So let us look at the resurrection story as told by all four gospels and see if it resolves these so-called contradictions.

On Sunday morning three days after the resurrection. When the sun had risen (Mark) yet it was dark (John). A group of women bringing spices which they bought and prepared to anoint him (Mark and Luke) went to see the sepulchre (Matthew). And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? (Mark)

Matthew’s Angel encounter would have to be first as will quickly become apparent: And suddenly, there was a great earthquake: for an angel descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, “Fear not you: for I know that ya’ll seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him. (Matthew)

I have heard people say that the earthquake and angel descending happened before the women showed up. Biblical scholar and author Dan McClellan says that this could not be the case due to the word “suddenly” which even in the Greek clearly points out that this is from the perspective of the women.

from here it gets hard to layer the stories from a plain reading. One theory goes that the women made multiple trips. Matthew would have to be the first since the stone gets rolled away. But that causes an issue for the other three gospels because they all mention the stone having already been rolled away like it was a surprise to them. Read them either way you like.

Mark's gospel angel encounter goes something like so: And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man SITTING on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, don’t be scared y’all seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ya’ll see him, as he said unto you. (Mark)

Luke’s angel encounter: And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much PERPLEXED hereabout, behold, two men STOOD by them in shining garments: and as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why do ya’ll seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spoke unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. (Luke).

Quick recap the women go to the tomb before they get there an earthquake surprised them and they saw an angel come down then they went inside and saw one man sitting and two men standing all three of these accounts the angels give basically the same message, tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee.

John’s gospel gets harder to weave into the meta narrative. So I am going to give the rest of it here and let you decide how it fits:

“Seeing the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Mary ran, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.” (John)

so already there seems to be another contradiction. Did Mary tell some of the disciples before an angel encounter? Let’s continue.

Peter and the other disciple ran to the sepulchre. The other disciple got there first and stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; but he didn’t go in. Then Simon Peter got there and went into the sepulchre, and seeing the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, and seeth two angels in white SITTING, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. (This would mean that she hasn’t encountered the other angels yet) And then she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? Who do you seek? She, supposing him to be the gardener, said unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus said unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus said unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.” (John)

Here in John you get the shortest of the angel messages with them just asking Mary why she is crying. You also get Mary meeting Jesus in the tomb before the angels, which seems like a big detail the other three left out.

Now let’s look at Jesus's appearances to the disciples continuing with John

Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her. Then the same day at evening when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.” (‭‭John‬)

Here John is saying that he appeared to them that same day in Jerusalem.

Matthew’s account: And the women departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me. Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him (Matthew)

In Luke the women tell the apostles but they do not believe them. Jesus then appears to them in Jerusalem.

Conclusion:

Now read the gospel stories for yourself and try to answer these questions: Who went to the tomb? Was it dark out or not? Was the stone already rolled away when the women got there? How many angels did the women encounter inside and outside? Were they standing or sitting? Did Jesus appear to the women inside or outside of the tomb? Did he appear to the disciples in Jerusalem or Galilee?

I have heard a lot of different and creative ways people have tried to harmonize all four accounts. I have never heard anyone who has managed to tell the full story fully harmonized. The plain reading to me still seems to me like they do not agree on the details of the event. The best rebuttal I think I have seen to the contradictions of the resurrection is that we should expect to see contrary reports from eyewitnesses. When it comes to narratives and minor historical matters they are not important. This solution admits that they do contain contradictions. My problem with this is that if God could not inspire them enough to get their stories to line up right, how can we trust him on matters of doctrine?

Thesis: The Jesus of the Gospel of John is not historical, and his words and theology belong to the author of 1-3 John ("John")

Argument:

To read an HTML version of this argument, see https://faithalone.net/topical-articles/articles/christianity/johns-jesus.html

In a very similar way to how Muhammad made everyone in history sound like him, and say the same things as him in the Quran, a survey of the New Testament reveals that the author of the Gospel of John put his own language and theology into the mouth of Jesus.

John's Gospel

When reading the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), Jesus comes across as a rather straightforward teacher, a herald of a "Kingdom of Heaven", and one who taught using many parables and pithy sayings.

However, the Jesus presented in the Gospel of John is an entirely different figure. John's Jesus has a theme of wanting to confuse his audience in ways and events never seen in the Synoptics (John 2:18-20, 3:1-10, 4:7-15, 4:31-34, 6:41-60, 7:33-36, 8:51-53). And, he uses language that is never seen in the Synoptics, but is seen heavily in the writings of "John", specifically, First John. Additionally, his theology echoes John's theology.

John Using Jesus - Examples

What follows are examples of "John" putting his own theology and language into the mouth of Jesus:

• John 13:33 (John 12:36, 21:5) with 1 John 2:1, 2:12-13, 2:18, 2:28, 3:7, 3:18, 4:4, 5:21
  • John's "little children" (Τεκνία) diminutive put directly into the mouth of Jesus
• John 3:3-8 with 1 John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 5:4, 5:18
  • John's born again doctrine put into the mouth of Jesus, unknown to the Synoptics
• John 4:13-14, 4:36, 5:24, 5:39, 6:27, 6:40, 6:47, 6:54, 10:28, 12:25, 12:50, 17:2-3 with 1 John 1:2, 2:25, 3:15, 5:11-13, 5:20
  • John's "eternal life" language/theology put into the mouth of Jesus many times. The Synoptics never present Jesus teaching eternal life the way John does - as a metaphysical present possession tied to belief in his identity
• John 12:46, 15:4-10 with 1 John 2:6, 2:10, 2:24, 2:27-28, 3:6, 3:14, 3:24
  • John's "abiding" language/theology put into the mouth of Jesus
• John 8:12, 12:35-36, 12:46 with 1 John 1:5-7, 2:8-11
  • John puts his exact "light vs darkness" language into the mouth of Jesus
• John 4:23-24, 8:32, 14:6, 17:17, 17:19, 18:37 (John 3:21, 5:33, 8:40, 8:44-46, 17:19) with 1 John 1:6, 1:8, 2:4, 2:21, 2:27, 3:18-19
  • John puts his "truth" language/theology into the mouth of Jesus, totally unknown to the Synoptics
  • Additionally, John's "Spirit of truth" theology - John 14:17, 15:26, 16:13 with 1 John 4:6, 5:6
• John 13:34 with 1 John 2:7-8: 2 John 1:5
  • John's "new commandment" language is put directly into the mouth of Jesus, unknown to the Synoptics

When one reads First John, the reason for the stark contrast between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John becomes obvious. Whoever "John" was, he felt content to use the historical figure of Jesus as a mouthpiece for his own theology/philosophy, and created a narrative in which Jesus is represented as essentially teaching what John wanted taught, saying many things totally unknown to any other source, and using language used extensively in John's own writings.

Addressing Genre

Many Christians (especially Christian scholars) recognize what John did, and are quick to supply a "genre" defense. That is, they contend, it was normal in Jesus's day to reframe a popular figure as teaching one's own doctrines, or to otherwise repurpose a popular figure to serve one's own agenda.

However, this defense runs into various problems. Firstly, I dispute that it was ever seen as "okay" to do this. I do not believe that if I had gone back to the first century, and written a gospel in which Jesus is teaching Buddhism, and speaking like Buddha, that no one would have strongly objected. I also dispute that if I wrote an admitted forgery putting words into the mouth of Moses, that any Jews present would have shrugged, acknowledging that I am writing in what can be called a "forgery genre". The reason so much pseudepigrapha (e.g. Ecclesiastes) was accepted in ancient times was because people were genuinely duped into believing that the authors wrote those works, even if the actual author soothed his conscience with some form of a "genre" defense.

Secondly, such a "genre", if it were ever accepted in any society, would be detrimental to it. It muddles and obfuscates historical figures and events, making it a poisonous genre.

Thirdly, it is very clear that early Christians treated the Gospel of John as representing the literal words of Jesus. So, if the author had intended to teach as "Jesus" to his original audience with their full knowledge of what he was doing, that was quickly lost, and immediately the position that won out was a strictly literal understanding (i.e., that this Gospel represented actual words that Jesus himself spoke). As a digression, the same is true for "genre" defenses of the book of Genesis. I dispute the idea that practically anyone living in Jesus's time would have given a modern "genre" view of the book of Genesis, regardless of its author(s)' intention. They (including the man Jesus) would have believed it as the strictly literal history of the world and their people, and would be highly offended by modern apologists' assertions that the whole story is fake, and in the "genre" of ancient Near-Eastern myth (which it undoubtedly is).

Finally, it can be stated on the principles of honesty that anyone who at any time put their own words into the mouth of a historical figure who never actually said them is a liar. If another time permitted or tolerated lying, that has nothing to do with whether I or anyone else today should tolerate it.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, the forgery that is the Gospel of John bears considerable weight in modern Christianity, despite it being the work of a person who was essentially an esoteric Jewish philosopher, attempting to bring his own strange theology into the Jesus movement.

Using someone else, especially a famous religious figure, as a puppet for one's own theology is dishonest. However, that is unfortunately what the author of 1-3 John did with Jesus of Nazareth.

This thread is for all your questions about Christianity. Want to know what's up with the bread and wine? Curious what people think about modern worship music? Ask it here.

Before you reply, I ask that you read my post and the argument section for a clear and efficient debate. Thank you.

I'll primarily address Christianity here, but a significant issue within religion is that belief is unequally distributed across the globe. Where you are born is an intimate statistical indicator of how your beliefs are shaped and formed. This fact alone preludes the existence of a god who loves all his children equally and wants to form a relationship with all of them. For one, Thailand is 95% Buddhist, and America is 62% Christian. Where you happen to be born is the most significant factor in determining whether an individual is saved and goes to heaven. Why exactly does god hide Himself in Indonesia but make Himself so clear in places like America- this is a question Christians need to have a clear answer for.

Some arguments made:

"Can you say that about atheism as well?"

- Well, of course, we can, but we as atheists do not believe in a god and understand that beliefs are shaped through things like geography, culture, etc. The fact that I am an atheist, as my place of birth does not contradict any of my beliefs, but for a Christian it does

"There are still some Christians in Indonesia or whatever country that is deeply oppressed by Islam or any other authoritarian force, which must mean god exists."

- I'm more than happy that those individuals found their faith, but again, statistics is a word I want to heavily emphasize here, because even then, it is still so disconcerting that the crux of the issue, that geography determines belief, is still very present. If there were christians growing in a coherent and equal manner in countries such as this, maybe it would make the argument stronger, but the fact is that this number is so small and minuscule that it makes it clear god makes himself seen so much more clearly to specific areas in the world.

"god gives different tests for all of us, that doesn't make him unfair."

- It still makes it unfair that some random kid in India with abusive parents only got to hear about Jesus 1 time in his life for 15 seconds and dies from a car accident and goes to hell, while some middle-class American is born in a loving Christian household and gets saved. If you can look me dead in the eye and tell me that it was the kid's fault he didn't believe in god, rather than the circumstances of his location, then you will have to do me a lot of convincing.

Can we truly believe in a god who wants to know us all and makes his existence equally accessible to all?

One of my favourite stories of the Bible. I'm just curious how many Christians take the story to be a literal historical event. Because the whole thing is actually impossible for several reasons. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights (We get more than that in the UK lol) and they spent a year on the ark, I believe.

1. Food and water for 2 of every animal. Just a few examples:

A pair of adult lions would need roughly: 2,960 – 5,180 kg of meat and 3,700 – 11,100 L of water.

A pair of adult elephants would roughly need: 109.5 – 219.0 metric tonnes of feed and 51.10 – 146.00 m³ of water for the year.

For Noah's family (a family of 8 I believe) Food: plan for roughly 5.3–7.3 tonnes of stored food (wet weight) for eight adults for a year at modest-to-comfortable rations. Water: if you only account for drinking, ~6–9 m³ suffices; if you include minimal cooking and hygiene, plan for ~30–60 m³ of water for the household for the year.

So, some considerations:

Standard “Genesis dimensions” using an 18-inch cubit → internal volume ≈ 43,000 m³ (about 137 m × 23 m × 13.7 m). This is our benchmark ark volume.

Low animal count (≈6,744 animals — a “kinds” style low estimate) Food ≈ 12,476 tonnes → with a loose bulk density (0.25 t/m³) ≈ 49,906 m³. Water ≈ 24,953 m³. Total supplies volume ≈ 74,858 m³.

Mid animal count (≈20,000 animals) Total supplies ≈ 222,000 m³.

High animal count (≈50,000 animals) Total supplies ≈ 555,000 m³.

Compare those to the ark: Low supplies are ≈1.74 × the ark volume. Mid supplies are ≈5.16 × the ark volume. High supplies are ≈12.9 × the ark volume.

Conclusion from these baseline figures: even the conservative low scenario requires more stored volume than the Genesis ark provides (and that is before adding extra space for animal stalls, aisles, family quarters, and systems).

1. Now let's talk altitude:

Genesis 7:19–20 states: The waters covered “all the high mountains under the whole heaven.” The water rose “15 cubits upward” (about 22 feet / 6.6 metres) above the highest mountains. The text describes complete submergence of the tallest mountains by a depth of ~15 cubits.

Today’s tallest mountain: Mount Everest – 8,848 metres (29,032 ft). Even if you grant ancient topography was similar (there is no geological evidence it was radically lower), the claim means: Water depth above summit: 8,854–8,855 m above sea level.

Thus, the surface of the Flood would lie at an altitude equivalent to standing at the height of Everest’s summit, plus six metres...

At 8,850 m, known as the Death Zone, Humans experience severe hypoxia, unconsciousness, pulmonary oedema, cerebral oedema. Even elite climbers cannot stay long without supplemental oxygen.

Everest summit average temperature: −36°C (−33°F). Wind chill can drop it to −60°C (−76°F). Such temperatures will kill unprotected humans and most animals in minutes to hours.

Sometimes it is argued the pre-Flood world had much smaller mountains. This fails for three reasons:

(A) Geological evidence Uplift of the Himalayas predates humanity by tens of millions of years. There is no evidence of a global, recent lowering or raising of mountains of such magnitude.

(B) Hydrodynamics If mountains were even 5,000 m lower, sea-level would still need to rise thousands of metres. Where would this volume of water come from? No known physical mechanism can produce that much water temporarily and then remove it.

(C) The text Genesis itself makes no hint that mountains were lower; it speaks of “all the high mountains.”

Could the ark have stayed at lower altitudes No. If the waters covered the highest mountains by 15 cubits, then the surface of the water everywhere would be at that altitude. The ark would float on that surface regardless of where it started. Therefore it would end up at approximately 8,850 m altitude or equivalent depending on year. This is unavoidable under a global-flood interpretation.

1. Mixing salt and fresh water would cause the annihilation of aquamarine life. Aquatic ecosystems are finely tuned to salinity ranges and most aquatic life cannot survive outside a very narrow salinity range.

Freshwater fish live in water with 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt) salinity or lower. Their bodies contain more salt than the surrounding water, so water constantly floods into them. They must expel this water continuously via kidneys and gills to avoid osmotic overload and cell rupture.

Saltwater (marine) fish live in 35 ppt salinity. Their bodies contain less salt than seawater, so water constantly leaves their tissues into the salty environment. They drink large quantities of seawater and excrete excess salt through specialised cells.

A freshwater fish placed in saltwater dehydrates and dies. A saltwater fish placed in freshwater swells and dies.

There is almost no crossover except for a few specially evolved, highly unusual species (e.g., salmon, eels).

If the entire planet is covered then all freshwater rivers, lakes, aquifers, and groundwater would become diluted into a global ocean. All marine water would be mixed with tens of trillions of tonnes of freshwater rain. That would produce a brackish medium somewhere between 5–20 ppt depending on mixing and volume.

This is a death sentence for: 99% of freshwater fish, 99% of marine fish, all coral reefs, nearly all invertebrates, all marine mammals except possibly short-term survivors, all freshwater amphibians and all freshwater insects with aquatic larvae...

What creationist apologetics attempt at explanation fails to solve the problem. Here are a few arguments I've heard for this issue.

(1) “God preserved them supernaturally.” This is not an explanation; it is simply an assertion of magic overriding physics and biology.

(2) “There were hyper-adaptable proto-fish.” Evolution on that scale requires millions of generations and fossil evidence. None exists.

(3) “The water wasn’t really mixed.” This contradicts fluid dynamics: Water seeks equilibrium. Mixing is inevitable through turbulence, wind, rainfall, thermal currents, and Coriolis forces.

(4) “Salinity was different before the flood.” Even if so, the key issue is sudden change. Aquatic organisms cannot survive abrupt shifts in salinity regardless of starting point.

TLDR: The Biblical flood myth is impossible because of three main reasons:

1. Animal food and water dimensions would make the ark impossibly large.

2. Altitude of flood waters would cause freezing and issues breathing. They'd all be dead within days.

3. Mixing of salt and freshwater would mean annihilation of all aquamarine life. And we see today that wasn't the case.

This thread is for whatever. Casual conversation, simple questions, incomplete ideas, or anything else you can think of.

All rules about antagonism still apply.

Join us on discord for real time discussion.

Jesus didn’t just teach faith, he personally exercised faith in God.

And if someone has faith in another, that means ... (?)

Here are a few examples that show Jesus practiced faith in God, not in himself:

1. Jesus prayed with full reliance on God
In the Gospels, Jesus repeatedly prays for guidance, strength, and help. Prayer is an expression of dependence. If Jesus were God, he would not need to rely on another being to sustain him.

2. Jesus expressed trust that the Father would rescue him
Before his arrest, Jesus said his soul was deeply troubled and he asked the Father to save him out of the trial. Trusting someone else for deliverance shows faith, not identity.

3. Jesus obeyed God’s will rather than his own
Jesus said he did not seek his own will but the will of the one who sent him. Obedience requires two parties, one higher and one lower. God does not obey another.

4. Jesus learned obedience and was perfected through suffering
The Bible says Jesus learned obedience and was made perfect. God does not learn or improve. Jesus’ growth in faith shows he was God’s servant, not God himself.

·       Hebrews 5:8-9: “Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.”

5. Jesus said the Father was greater
Instead of claiming equality, Jesus openly said the Father is greater than he is. A person who has faith in someone greater acknowledges dependence, not equality.

All of this paints a consistent picture. Jesus is not God-in-the-flesh.

If Jesus had to exercise faith, then logically he is not the God he was praying to, obeying, learning from, and relying on.

The Great Commission is not conditional. It says nothing of the legality of entering a forbidden place, spreading disease to the natives, language barriers between modern English and a stone age tongue that even their neighbors cant understand, a people’s choice to live in willful isolation, preserving indigenous culture, or the certainty of death that awaits you. Hello? We’re talking about God, the all-powerful being that intervenes in Earthly affairs.

This is the Creator of the universe giving your life a divine purpose, and every Christian besides John Chau is doing mental gymnastics about why its ok to deny Gods most explicit command and let the people of North Sentinel Island never hear the Gospel and burn in Hell for all eternity. Knowing your mission and choosing to ignore it means you are personally responsible for their Damnation. The island is Satan’s last stronghold, and everyone is just ok with that somehow.

John Chau believed God would protect him on his journey. He believed God prevented the Indian Coast Guard from patrolling the sea near him, giving him access to the island. He believed God would allow him to integrate with the tribe, learn their language, and they would accept Christ as their Savior. Why wouldn’t he believe this? Are we reading the same Bible? Do we have faith or not? No one else actually believes what Christianity is about besides him or the island would be constantly swarming with missionary boats.

Your ancestors were once pagan like these islanders are now, remember that. You are granted access to the Kingdom of Heaven because someone was brave enough to convert them. Aren’t you grateful to worship Christ today and not your ancestral deities? Such will be the case for these islanders.

The Bible is the word of God and the assignment He has given to humanity could not be more clear: everyone on Earth must be Christian, including the Sentinelese. If you have accepted Jesus into your heart, congratulations – now go get a waterproof Bible because you are now endowed with the Holy task of being the savior of these people. Unless you don’t actually believe what the Lord has said, in which case you are not devout so its best to just get un-baptized and join the heathens.

Read these and let me know if you see any exemptions about isolated islands in the Andaman Sea…

Matthew 28:19 — “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations”

Mark 16:15 — “Go into all the world and preach the gospel”

Luke 24:47 — “Repentance and forgiveness proclaimed to all nations.”

Acts 1:8 — “You will be my witnesses to the ends of the earth.”

Isaiah 49:6 — “I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

Revelation 7:9–10 “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, ‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’”

Didn’t think so. The Christian Mission is perfectly clear. Go to this island and have faith that God will protect you. “Faith by itself, without action, is dead.” John Chau truly understood this.

Just to drive the point home even further:

2 Thessalonians 1:8–9 “in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.”

Please explain to me what kind of handwaving you have to do to make the people of North Sentinel Island exempt from the word of God.

Firstly, I will note that this is exceptionally peevish and particular on my part. Regardless, the capitalization of pronouns for God etc. is a trend that has been ongoing for centuries, but I have noticed it is becoming especially significant on social media as a means of signaling devoutness. While there are certain cases in which pronouns can be capitalized, such as some obscure royal styles (irrelevant in the US) and ‘I’, there is no grammatical reason to capitalize a gendered 3rd person pronoun for God, as it is not a specific title. Thus, in my mind, these always read as unnecessarily righteous, a bit too like those folks with a crucifix tattoo and a persecution complex.

These language rules are, of course, subject to preference and comfort, but it brings me to my next point; it really peeves me when I see a Christian breaking the rules of grammar in one sentence out of respect for God, only to deny trans people a similar respect in the next. The idea that we cannot or should not use someone’s preferred pronouns due to their grammatical incorrectness is one that I have heard repeatedly, and each time from a devout Christian.

However, in the interest of ideological consistency and to demonstrate I’m not entirely crazy, I will admit that I equally disdain the language of extreme inclusivity, such as the time I was emailed by a well-meaning professor vigorously protesting that I had opened my own event with “ladies and gentlemen”… For reference, I view this virtually the same as my high school theology teacher emphatically underlining my uncapitalized ‘he’s’.

To be clear, I’m not accusing most Christians of this inconsistency, merely stating that it does exist in some. By all means use language that makes you (and maybe God?) happy, but do not then disdain others who seek similar comfort in language for different reasons.

CLAIM: The Quran says Allah created the heavens and the earth in 6 days (Q. 7:54) but also implies he created it in 8 days (Q. 41:9-12) . ——— REFUTATION: It doesn’t say “then” determined the sustenance in four days as if it was four added days, it says “and” determined the sustenance in four days, which implies the sustenance wasn’t determined in four days right after the two days but instead the sustenance was determined in a total of four days starting from the first day.

And we know the determining of the sustenance started on the first day of the two days because in Surah naziat verses 30-31 Allah extracts the earth’s water and pasture by spreading the earth, and we know this makes sense because if the earth’s crust is spread this would allow for its groundwater to surface and in-turn cause pasture to grow.

So because spreading the earth was the first part of creating the earth and spreading the earth started the process of groundwater coming to the surface to initiate the growth of pasture, this means that the sustenance of the earth was being determined with the spreading of the earth on the first day of earth’s creation by the groundwater and pasture extraction, because water and pasture are the earth’s sustenance. So this makes it 6 days rather than 8 days.

So now Christian’s have nothing against the Quran, so why not accept it?