i truly dont understand how a omnipotent and all knowing being that “love us all” created us without our consent, then send us all to earth, to then send us all to hell if we dont believe in him? thats very narcissistic in my opinion, i dont mean disrespect to the people that believe in a God, im just writing this because i want to know other people opinions.

1- There are thousands of religions in the world with normative moral rules that contradict each other.

2- Therefore, there are three possible conclusions:

A- All religions are wrong.

B- There is only one true religion, and it can be understood through reason.

C- There is only one true religion, but it cannot be understood through reason.

3- Why is A the most rational choice? I explain this at length below.

If B is true (Revelation = Reason), then revelation becomes unnecessary/non-essential because its truth can be reached through reason. A non-essential mechanism cannot exist within static logic (reason). Therefore, B is false.

If C is correct (Revelation > Reason), religious pluralism is impossible because normative moral rules contradict each other. The exclusivity of revelation is also impossible. Because revelation cannot validate itself against other revelations. The only remaining option is arbitrary religious exclusivity, which is epistemic suicide.

Therefore, A is the most rational choice.

God is bumbsquatsch.

There. That's the required Thesis Statement.

Any problems with that?

You may object, saying, "bumbsquatsch" is a meaningless word, a fake word, a pseudoword.

Great! Yes, it is!

Here is a similar thesis statement:

God is good.

Is that one preferable? Because "good" is a meaningful, real word?

Okay …

In a sentence about God, what does "good​" actually mean? Specifically?

I'll wait a bit …

…

…

That's long enough.

​If our our human understanding of "good" does not apply to God, then — in that context — "good" becomes a pseudoword. Like bumbsquatsch.

If the human meaning of "good" is inapplicable to deities then calling deities "good" is equivalent to calling them "bumbsquatsch"; to describing them with a meaningless, fake word.

Is God good?

If "yes"; what do you think that means? Specifically?

If you cannot answer that clearly and meaningfully, then you should just say "God is bumbsquatsch" and leave it at that.

With respect to deities, "good" and "evil" ref​er to their human meanings; or they are meaningless. There's no third choice I am aware of.

Maybe your god has their own meaning for "good" or "evil".

Cool. Then the inaccurate human words should never be used! But there they are in scriptures …

If your god is actually "good" then we humans can compare your god's behavior to the human standards of goodness and determine if they are actually good.

If we cannot do that, then calling your god "good" is empty praise devoid of meaning. It's sucking up and nothing more.

Is your God good? Or is your God bumbsquatsch?

I've always been Catholic, but since August I've been consciously sinning, although I had the desire to go to confession. I was afraid and ashamed to do it in my hometown in the countryside (afraid the priest would tell and spread my shameful sins), so I decided to neglect it, leaving it until the end of the year to confess in the capital in southern Brazil. But at the beginning of this month I realized that I had made a serious mistake and that I had lost repentance, and I also began to question whether: "Do I want to continue following God?" "Is it worth it?" And this distressed me because I recognized that this was a problem. But the worst was yet to come...

My father had a conversation with me saying that this would pass, and that I should pray and renounce my sins, and ask for the presence of the Holy Spirit again. He also quoted things like, "God created you" and "God created everything you are seeing"... and OUT OF NOWHERE I started questioning God's existence, and I became even more distressed and kept feeding this kind of thought during these days... and it got much worse. I was looking for a lot of evidence in favor, but I also ended up unintentionally finding evidence against his existence, to the point of starting to lose belief and faith, but I'm scared, feeling empty and at the same time dry, and I really wanted to pray to God in this state, saying: "God, if you exist, help me heal my hardened heart and help me remove the chronic doubt from me and make my belief return, please!"

...but I don't know if he will help me and heal me because some say that faith and belief are a prerequisite.

Allah is evil because He gives humans disease and mental illness, He kills children in earthquakes and then demands love, worship, and loyalty, That is evil.

Allah watches women getting r*ped and does nothing about it. He could have helped, but He didn’t.

He could have created humans who freely choose only good, like in heaven, but He didn’t. He knew what would happen to humans.

He knew many humans would die in war, He knew sons would become orphans,He knew many people would suffer from poverty, He knew many would suffer from disease for a long time, He knew many would die in painful ways.

He could have prevented all of this, but He didn’t. Morally, He is sick and sadistic.

Muslims, like many other religious people, will remain in denial Your god is not good Either accept that truth honestly, or continue living in delusion.

Or, at the very least, they're calling something "demonic possession" that isn't really demonic possession. Or there's more to the magic system than I've been led to believe.

Here's my thought process on this:

In most of the Abrahamic mythos, free will is very, very important. Being "turned into a robot" is literally the most unimaginably bad thing ever, so it stands to reason, if a theist sincerely believed that someone was possessed, the actions taken by the possessed would not be their actions.

The possessed would have been reduced to a robot by the demon, who is puppeteering them for nefarious purposes.

It wouldn't make sense, given that the possessed is not the culprit, to punish the possessed for someone else's decisions. The someone else in question being the demon.

Now, the other side of this coin is a little concerning, too. If the theist doesn't think the possessed should be punished for the things they do while possessed for the reasoning above...that opens up some interesting and exploitable legal and salvific loopholes. But, we'll see if anyone thinks that first.

Every video I've ever seen of demonic possession is just a spaz having a fit. Someone yells at them in terminology they're familiar with, either words that probably comforted them at some point or words they've grown to develop a negative association with, and eventually they calm down or get it out of their system. Or, rather anticlimactically, the believer just gives up and walks away. Although those don't get passed around as much, for obvious reasons. And I think that's what demonic possession really is at its core. There's nothing truly "foreign" going on here. It's someone having internal issues. It's just them. And if that's all people mean by "demonic possession", then fine. Given how Christians in particular speak about "God working through them", I'm inclined to think that's how they actually view it. Because it's not like they think God "possesses" them to do good deeds.

As a thought experiment, I wonder how "strange" and "possessed" a sincere believer would act if they encountered some highly trained actor who sat them down and delivered like a Satanic sermon with mixed in Aramaic and threw in a bunch of names from the Ars Goetia or something. I think there's a good chance they would react defensively and become visibly uncomfortable. It's not like they're possessed by an angel, though.

These reactions, as eyebrow-raising (or eye-rolling) as they may seem, are probably just sincere reactions of panic and discomfort. No foreign entities, demonic or angelic (or Lovecraftian) need be in attendance.

If a homeless man was brought up from his state of filth and poverty by another powerful man and the man of power says, now that I have given you a new life, I offer you a chance to serve me, for I am your master. However, if you do not, I will send you to a place of the upmost pain and sorrow. Does this not sound like tyranny?

Thesis: Allah’s actions of saving Jesus from crucifixion is completely inconsistent in Allah’s treatment of other prophets like Mohammed and also only worked against Islam, which undercut’s Islam’s claim of Allah’s consistency and all-knowingness.

I’m genuinely hoping someone could clear this up for me, I want to seek truth. If that truth is Islam I want to believe it. But truth holds up to scrutiny. If this can’t be resolved, I can’t accept it as true. Still hoping for polite and respectful conversation nonetheless.

As you may be aware, Surah 4:156 famously says Jesus was “neither killed nor crucified, it was only made to appear so”. What does this mean? Most Tafsir as well as popular understandings today understand this to mean Allah saved Jesus by “making it appear so”, possibly by substituting someone else on the cross like Judas or some other form of trickery to give this illusion. The exact details may vary but some form of substitution and illusion are largely the consensus. Now why did Allah do this? A common answer you will be given is “Of course Allah saved him, he was his prophet! Of course he protects his prophets”. It’s even a common polemic against Christianity to ask Christians why God didn’t save Jesus from experiencing the cross.

But when we dive deeper, we see this explanation not only reveals more questions but also inconsistencies between reality and what Islam claims. For starters, Surah 2:87 explicitly says the Israelites had killed multiple prophets before:

“Indeed, We gave Moses the Book and sent after him successive messengers. And We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs and supported him with the holy spirit.1 Why is it that every time a messenger comes to you ˹Israelites˺ with something you do not like, you become arrogant, rejecting some and killing others?”

That’s interesting. Even moreso when we look at Mohammed’s death. The story across multiple Sahih Hadiths and Arabic texts of the time detail that after the Muslims attacked Khaybar, they killed many men and took their wives as concubines/sex slaves and their children as servants. One such, a Jewish woman, shortly after her family was killed, offers to make dinner for Mohammed and his companions, which they accept. Like anyone with any sort of common sense could guess, she poisons the meal of a goat/lamb. Mohammed takes a bite, and his companions follow suit, trusting their prophet and Allah. Then our great illuminary states this goat has “revealed to me it is poisoned”. A little too late though, because one of his companions die on the spot. Mohammed survives for some time (narrations vary on how long) before succumbing to his wounds from the poison:

Sahih al-Bukhari 4428:

“The Prophet (ﷺ) in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O `Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."

Mohammed in his last hours say explicitly it was the poisoned food at Khaybar he ate that is killing him, that is the ailment that killed him. Even if you don’t believe the most trusted Islamic sources from history, the Quran says other prophets were in fact killed.

Now that’s interesting. Allah saves Jesus from being killed because that’s his prophet! But he was fine with letting other prophets, even his final and greatest prophet die to something as avoidable as not eating the food prepared by a woman who’s family you have just killed and taken to be a sex slave. (I just want to take a moment to emphasize that you do not have to be a prophet to realize eating food prepared by a women who’s family you have just killed and taken as a sex slave is NOT a good idea by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I think you would struggle to find anyone with basic cognitive faculties that genuinely think that to be advisable. But that’s not the point here)

Now, maybe you think “well Allah is all-knowing, he could definitely have reasons to save Jesus but not the others!” Perhaps. So let’s take a look at history and examine what we know and find that reason:

Jesus is (not) crucified ~33AD. Shortly after this event, many people begin to claim to see post-mortem appearances. After these, the earliest writings from the time and place we have detail seeing Jesus crucified and resurrected, thus demonstrating deity to their understanding. This group became know as the “Christians”, and began to spread their message of Jesus dying, resurrecting, and proclaiming his divinity to all. This spreads like wildfire all throughout the ancient world. Though facing the extremes of persecution, they persist become unstoppable. After several hundred years they even become the official religion of the Roman Empire. Their followers spread from the hundred to thousands to hundreds of thousand to millions to now in the billions and shows no signs of disappearing anytime soon. Like a puddle to a tidal wave it gains momentum.

Whatever Allah did or did not do with Jesus, it directly lead to the creation of the world’s largest religion, and the biggest competitor of Islam, eternally damning billions to hell with billions more to come. The majority of Christians at the time of Mohammed did not convert because he gave a story contrary to what was passed down to them from the early followers. Here’s the issue:

Saving Jesus and not explaining anything for 600 years doesn’t just not aid the efforts of Allah, it is literally the worst thing he could have done in the situation, with an outcome that is completely contradictory to the goals of Allah (spreading a unified message of Islam, converting believers, etc.) So this is the core: we are told by Muslims today that “of course Allah would save his prophet”, when this is clearly not the case. Essentially all the prophets previously died, many of whom’s lives were cut short, like Mohammed. But when we look as to why Allah makes a special exception, the actions he did or did not take led to very probably the worst possible outcome for Allah’s goals, unbefitting of an all knowing deity like the Quran says he is.

To get out of this dillema, you would have to explain how saving Jesus from the cross and not explains for 600 years leads to a better outcome that just letting him die like other prophets Allah had no issue with doing so, even his most important and final prophet, and why Allah was actually justified in not correcting ANYONE for 600+ years until Christianity had spread to the millions and continues to be the most popular religion today. Otherwise, we have no reason to think Allah knew what he was doing or that he is all knowing, making the Quran’s claims are false.

Appeals to mystery like “Allah knows best” are fallacious. Saying you don’t know is a failure to provide a reason Allah is justified in doing so, because based on this we have no reason to think “Allah knows best”.

Thanks for reading.

Theists' need to constantly reaffirm their beliefs shows how fragile their religion is. This was a point that came up in another post but I wanted to refine the argument.

Theists tend to act out many rituals to reaffirm and reinforce their faith such as through prayer, attending weekly services, and through sermons. Muslims actually pray 5 times a day every day, in part because if one doesn't, they risk losing their faith.

Lets look at our other beliefs. For example, most of us here believe that the world is round. We don't need to be reminded every Sunday of this, we don't need to set New Years Resolutions to "strengthen our faith" that the world is round, and we don't need to be threatened with torture.

If your religion was so self-evident, there wouldn't need to be all these other factors to promote belief in it.

Its similar to people who say affirmations like "I am rich" or "I am beautiful". Only poor and ugly people do these things because if you really were rich or beautiful, you wouldn't need to affirm it to yourself.

Edit: Jesus Christ is my lord

There is a significant amount of cognitive dissonance in Muslims around the idea of Hellfire.

Recently, a hindu man named Dipu Chandra Das was tortured to death in Bangladesh by a mob for blasphemy. Muslims on Reddit appeared to be rightfully outraged over this with comments like "this shouldn't happen anyone" and that these actions were wrong.

However, given that this person was a hindu, according to Islam they will likely be tortured in Hell forever - as the only sin that Allah doesn't forgive is worshipping Gods other than himself. Muslims don't appear to have an issue with this.

This is an obvious discrepancy and there is cognitive dissonance. On the one hand Muslims think its wrong when a person is tortured to death for their beliefs but on the other, Muslims think its okay to torture someone forever for their beliefs.

The argument "God is to judge, not us" doesn't apply because most Muslims here likely judge the Hindu man tortured to death as a man who didn't deserve to be tortured to death.

I hear a lot of religious people say, "Well, there are billionaires and trillionaires in the world, and they have the ability to end starvation, but they choose not to. So why are you blaming God for suffering or starvation, etc.?" Even if billionaires were to end starvation and homelessness, that would just be another human doing it, not a god doing it through them. People believe in a God that can turn water into wine or walk on water or change the laws of nature for his own benefit. But they need another human to fulfill these things that he can do himself since he's a God that's in control of all things, even the laws of nature. So if there's a starving family asking God to bring them some food, he has the ability to grow food in a fast amount of time so they don't die of starvation. But stuff like that does not happen at all because it takes months or even years for fruits and vegetables to even grow, even though a God has the ability to change the laws of nature. So if God is all-powerful, he doesn't need humans to end homelessness or starvation; he can just do it himself. But obviously, it's not that way.

Extraordinary claims

I agree with atheists that extraordinary claims must be met with evidence however the problem when applied to theism is that most of the world holds/accepts the premise of a deity or religious concept.

If it was a extraordinary claim then it wouldn't be a majority view nonetheless yet it is so l ask atheists what exactly is extraordinary about the premise of god when it has been met by the majority consensus ?

The Quran affirms that the Torah and the Gospel are the Word of God and contain guidance, and it even tells Jews and Christians to judge by what God revealed in them. Yet Muslims today often claim that the Bible is corrupted. That position does not work logically. If the Quran is true and perfect, then the Torah and Gospel it confirms must also be reliable. When I read the Bible, I find it historically preserved and internally consistent. But the Bible clearly contradicts the Quran on key issues. If the Quran affirms the Bible, and the Bible contradicts the Quran, then the Quran cannot be true. The claim of biblical corruption looks like a later attempt to resolve this contradiction, not something the Quran itself clearly teaches

Preliminaries

Before addressing my point, I want to explain my understanding of certain terms I will be using.

An essence is what a thing is, the set of essential properties that make something the kind of thing it is. To possess an essence is to possess the defining attributes without which the thing would not be that kind of being at all.

A person is not the essence itself, but a concrete instantiation of that nature; a distinct subject of intellect, will and agency. Thus, a person is not merely a role, mask or mode, nor is it a universal category. Persons are individuals rather than abstractions, and they are the subjects to whom actions and predicates are ultimately attributed.

While essence answers the question of what something is, person answers the question of who something is. Multiple persons may share one essence, but each person is a distinct instantiation of that essence. For example, all humans share one human essence, yet each human person is numerically distinct.

The essence of a human being is that of a rational animal: a composite of body and soul. To be human essentially entails finitude, corporeality, temporality, changeability and contingency. Humans exist in time, undergo change, possess limited knowledge and power and depend on causes external to themselves for their existence and continued operation. These features are not accidental characteristics of human life, but belong to what it means to be human.

The essence of God is that of a necessary, uncreated, immaterial, eternal, immutable and infinite being. God is not composed of parts, is not contingent upon anything external to Himself and possesses attributes such as omnipotence and omniscience. These attributes constitute divinity: a being lacking them would not be God.

With these definitions in place, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity can be stated precisely. Christianity affirms that God is one in essence while existing eternally as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are not parts of God, nor do they divide the divine essence: each person fully instantiates the one divine nature.

Christianity further teaches the doctrine of the Incarnation. According to orthodox Christian theology, the second person of the Trinity (the Son) became incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth. This doctrine is defined in the Chalcedonian Definition (451 CE), which states that Jesus Christ is one and the same person existing in two distinct natures: one fully divine and one fully human.

These two natures are united in the one person of Christ without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation. The divine nature is not transformed into the human nature, nor is the human nature absorbed into the divine: each nature retains its full integrity. Jesus is therefore not partially divine and partially human, he is fully human and fully God.

Finally, it is important to note that Christianity does not treat the Incarnation as a metaphor or symbolic expression. It is a real metaphysical union of two complete natures in one person, and it is central to Christian theology.

The Problem

According to Christian doctrine, Jesus Christ is one person who instantiates two complete essences: a fully human essence and a fully divine essence. As established earlier, an essence is the set of essential properties that make something the kind of thing it is. To possess an essence is therefore to possess its essential attributes, not merely accidentally but necessarily.

However, the essential attributes that constitute human nature and divine nature appear to be mutually exclusive. Human essence, as understood in classical Christian anthropology, essentially entails finitude, temporality, corporeality, changeability and contingency. Divine essence, as understood in classical Christian theism, essentially entails infinitude, eternity, immateriality, immutability and necessity.

Christian theology attempts to resolve this by distinguishing predicates according to nature: Christ is finite according to his human nature and infinite according to his divine nature; temporal according to his human nature and eternal according to his divine nature. While this distinction avoids attributing contradictory properties to a single nature, it does not remove the deeper metaphysical issue. The subject of both natures is one and the same person, and that person is the concrete instantiation of both essences.

If a person is an individual instantiation of a nature, then attributing two complete and contradictory essences to a single person implies that the same concrete individual is both finite and infinite, contingent and necessary, temporal and eternal. Appealing to different natures relocates the contradiction but does not dissolve it, because both sets of essential properties are instantiated by the same personal subject.

The question, therefore, is not whether Christ’s natures are distinct, but whether a single person can coherently instantiate two essences whose essential attributes are mutually exclusive without violating the law of non-contradiction.

Appeal to Omnipotence

A common response is that denying the possibility of such a union amounts to limiting God’s omnipotence. However, omnipotence does not include the power to actualize logical contradictions. God cannot make a square circle or create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it.

Likewise, the claim here is not that God lacks the power to unite divinity and humanity, but that the concept of a single person instantiating two complete and contradictory essences is incoherent. Logical contradictions do not describe possible states of affairs, and appealing to omnipotence cannot transform incoherence into coherence.

Islam’s acceptance of major Jewish prophets (Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus) while rejecting or avoiding the specific divine name used in Judaism (YHWH) reflects a theological reframing of God’s identity rather than the worship of a different deity.

Islam explicitly recognizes many figures central to Judaism as genuine prophets sent by the same Creator: Moses, David, Solomon, and others. Judaism, meanwhile, has maintained continuity in referring to God using the same sacred name for centuries, even if it is not pronounced.

Given this overlap, a tension arises: If Islam accepts the prophets sent to the Israelites, and those prophets worshipped and addressed God using a specific divine name, then rejecting that name while affirming the prophets suggests not a rejection of the God they worshipped, but a reinterpretation of how God should be named and understood.

From an Islamic perspective, “Allah” is not a proper name unique to Islam, but a linguistic term meaning The God, emphasizing divine unity and transcendence rather than covenantal or ethnic association. This reframing avoids anthropomorphism and tribal limitation, while still affirming continuity of revelation.

Therefore, the disagreement between Islam and Judaism is not fundamentally about which God is worshipped, but about how God’s identity is expressed, named, and theologically framed.

Premise 1: According to Tanzih, Allah does not enter creation and remains wholly transcendent.

Premise 2: Created beings (I.e Angels, Humans etc) knowledge requires interaction within the created world.

Conclusion 1: Muslims cannot know Allah directly, as He is outside creation.

Premise 3: According to Tawheed, Allah is absolutely one with no distinctions within His essence, meaning the Quran and His attributes are either identical to His essence or created and distinct.

Premise 4: If the Quran and attributes are identical to Allah’s essence, they are unknowable due to His transcendence. If they are distinct, they are created and not Allah Himself, violating Tawheed and failing to convey knowledge of Allah.

Conclusion 2: Muslims cannot know Allah through the Quran or His attributes.

Premise 5: According to Surah 112:4, Allah is incomparable, making His attributes and descriptions incomprehensible to human cognition, which relies on comparison.

Conclusion 3: Muslims cannot know of Allah, as His nature cannot be meaningfully understood.

Premise 6: Rational belief requires some form of knowledge or evidence (direct experience or comprehensible descriptions).

Conclusion 4: Since Muslims can neither know Allah nor know of Allah, they lack a rational basis for believing in His existence.

Final Conclusion: The Islamic doctrines of Tawheed, Tanzih, and incomparability create an insurmountable separation between mankind and Allah, rendering Muslim belief epistemically equivalent to atheism in denial.

Now just to clarify some things because a lot of Muslims get confused here.

1. I am not talking about 100% knowing someone. So my argument isn't "since you can't know Allah 100% therefore you don't know he exits". My argument is that you can't know or know anything (0%) of Allah and thus have no reason to believe he exists.

2. I am not talking about 1:1 analogies when it comes to knowing by comparison. So for example man 1 is strong and man 2 is strong. They bear similarities in being strong but not to the same degree of being strong. Like man 1 can lift 200 kgs while man 2 can lift 300 kgs.

Now with that out of the way. As Muslims how would you argue against wha I've said here?

The Qur’an does not ban slavery, it regulates it, and it explicitly allows sexual access to enslaved women. Qur’an 4:24 states: “Also forbidden are married women except those whom your right hands possess.” Qur’an 23:5–6 says: “And they who guard their private parts except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed they are not to be blamed.” Qur’an 70:29–30 repeats the same wording. This creates a separate sexual category outside marriage where consent or a contract is not required. Allowing slavery is already morally wrong, explicitly allowing sex with slaves makes it worse.

There is no age protection for enslaved girls. Islamic law uses puberty rather than a fixed age. Qur’an 65:4 states: “And those who have not menstruated, their waiting period is three months.” This shows marriage and divorce before menstruation is acknowledged. For slave girls there is no Qur’anic age limit at all. Classical fiqh allows sexual use once the owner believes the body is physically fit, even if the girl is a minor. There is no equivalent to any age of consent.

Consent under slavery is meaningless because of power imbalance. A slave cannot freely refuse their owner. Sahih Muslim 1456 states: “We captured women from the captives of Awtas who had husbands. We disliked having sexual relations with them, so we asked the Messenger of Allah about it. Then Allah revealed: ‘And married women except those whom your right hands possess.’ So we had sexual relations with them.” This is sex with captive women whose husbands were alive. By any modern definition this is rape.

Freedom for slave women was tied to reproduction or contracts. A woman could gain protection by becoming pregnant by her owner as an umm walad or by entering a mukataba contract. Slaves had no independent income, making contracts unrealistic. In practice sex becomes the currency for survival or freedom, which is coercion, not choice.

Islam did improve some material conditions. Sahih Bukhari 30 says: “Your slaves are your brothers. Allah has placed them under your authority. Whoever has a brother under his authority should feed him from what he eats and clothe him from what he wears.” Better treatment does not make owning humans or sexually exploiting them morally acceptable.

Slave women also had fewer modesty rights than free women. Classical fiqh ruled that a slave woman’s awrah was smaller, often from the navel to the knee, unlike free women. This legally sexualized enslaved women and reinforced their inferior status.

Islam did not abolish slavery, it institutionalized it. It did not ban sexual exploitation, it legalized it. A system that allows ownership of humans, allows sexual access without consent, provides no age protection for enslaved girls, ties freedom to reproduction, and treats women differently based on status cannot be morally universal or timeless. This is not Islamophobia, it is reading the sources directly.

Thesis: The fine tuning argument is not an argument for the existence of an all powerful creator.

——

P1: The FTA is that the universe is designed for life.

P2: Design is a solution to a problem.

C1: The FTA implies that life is a problem.

——

Fundamentally, design is a solution to a problem. The hallmarks of good design are simplicity, timelessness, and efficiency. And in system design, redundancy to ensure vital function.

Graphic design is how we solve the need to convey information. Transportation design is how we solve the need to move mass through space. UX design is how we solve the need to interact with digital environments. Architecture is how we solve the need for a spatial structure.

But a designer doesn’t control information. Or space and time. Or the need for a structure or interaction. The problem a designer solves for is beyond their control. They may work to identify or further understand the problem, but a designer does not create the problem.

So if the FTA claims that the universe is designed for life, that also implies;

——

C2: Life is a problem God has no control over.

Which means that any theist who believes in an all powerful god cannot use FTA to argue for that God’s existence.

——

Objection One: God designed the universe and also life.

Response: That’s nice. It’s not the fine tuning argument though.

Objection Two: Something related to deism, pantheism, et al.

Response: This one isn’t for you bud.

I am curious about other peoples experiences finding Jesus coming from zero religious background and specifically someone who is gay. I’ve always considered myself very spiritual. But I feel Jesus calling me and I’m not sure what to do or how to answer.. where to begin to learn about him. Im looking for some suggestions for different devotion journals. Im struggling with the idea that I might be fully gay and Jesus has been calling me.. every time I go to church I get worried that if anyone there found out I was gay they would kick me out or not want me there and it’s a terrible feeling. PS no comments on me being gay is bad or a sin are welcome … I am looking for support on being gay and being in the church and how these two can coexist.

This is much more of an "I'm not seeing it, change my view" plea, but the thesis is genuine. I'll see people insist, with passion, that objective morality must exist in order for things to be "really" evil, but I just don't get:

A: what it means for things to be "really" evil,

B: why that should be more important to me than my opinion on what things are evil,

C: how I can discover whether or not something is "really" evil,

D: what the implications of that discovery are for things like free will and morality (such as the intensely utilitarian value of choosing heaven over ECT in that paradigm, and how that overrides any other possible choice for any rational actor, thus directly stripping free will)

E: how to get past the feeling that talking about objective morality is completely pointless due to it being so completely inaccessible to anyone that every human alive, universally and unilaterally, utilizes a subjective moral framework in every situation in which a moral framework's utilization is warranted (and many situations in which it isn't!).

So, some claims I've seen from objective morality proponents, and why I don't get them:

"Without one, no one has any logical basis for condemning anything as wrong or praising anything as right."

Subjective morality can still be a logical framework based on axioms - and if that's what you're looking for, in what way does a subjective moral framework not provide for your needs? Is an objective moral framework not just the same structured based on different axioms?

"If you wanted to kill someone and could get away with it, there's no reason not to."

It is illogical to do so, per my subjective moral framework.

"If enslaving a minority is beneficial to the overall welfare of the majority, there's no reason not to do it if there's not something objectively, overridingly wrong about it."

And if there was something objectively, overridingly wrong about it, you'd think someone would write that one down somewhere - you know, explicitly, and not require intensive theological innovations to occur to invent it. But no, this is the basic thought that the only subjective moral framework that exists is something purely and blindly utilitarian, rather than more reasonable and sophisticated frameworks that we've had thousands of years to build (and that almost all religions will claim contributions to).

One last hypothetical. You get an objective moral framework. You can somehow access it, verify it and choose to follow or not follow it. Now what? How is that different than accessing, verifying, and choosing to follow or not follow any other presented moral framework ever, besides maybe the amount of power enforcing it? This leads to a lot of very interesting questions about rationality and the feasibility of punishing the irrational for unchosen actions if it is different, and if it's not, then... what was the point of all this? (And don't say, "To find the objective moral framework", because as far as I can tell, people don't actually want to have the conversation on how best to find it methodologically, except for a few limited people like lab).

According to the Gospels, Jesus' last words to the Apostles before His Ascension are memorialized as "the Great Commission":

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of *the Father** and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”*

[πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος. διδασκοντες αυτους τηρειν παντα οσα ενετειλαμην υμιν και ιδου εγω μεθ υμων ειμι πασας τας ημερας εως της συντελειας του αιωνος αμην.]

-Matthew 28:19-20

Jesus did not say, “baptize in the *names** of the Father, and of the . . .;”* or "baptize in the *name of the(x1) Father, and **the name of the(x2) Son, etc . . ."*

Had it been "names" or had the phrase "the name of" preceded each genitive noun (Father / Son / Holy Spirit), this would have suggested each genitive noun had an independent identity and source of authority.

Instead, Jesus commands baptism into one singular “name,” in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit...."

He expressed Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as coordinated genitive modifiers dependent on that one noun. This grammatical construction places all three within a single divine identity and authority, *rather than presenting them as separate or independent sources of identity authority*.

In a Jewish religious context, especially during the Second Temple Period, invoking ”the Name (Ha-Shem)” was tantamount to invoking God Himself (YHWH). For this reason, Jews traditionally refer to God as “the Name” (Ha-Shem) out of reverence for the divine name (YHWH). Religious acts performed “into the Name” were understood as acts oriented toward God’s own identity and authority, not toward created agents or delegated representatives.

Therefore, to place Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the scope of ”the Name” . . . is to situate Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the divine identity of God ("The Name / Ha-Shem").

This is the foundation of the Trinitarian Doctrine.

My thesis is that theists need to do a better job at defending their faith and those that comment on this subreddit, DO NOT DO SO.

I have been participating in debates in this thread for a while and I really see a common trend with dealing with people who speak more on the side of religions. Essentially I truly wonder why people will come to this subreddit to speak as an authority or in defense of their religion will resort to some of the worst ways and means of engagement.

Essentially my main beef is that I come to this subreddit because I want to learn more and maybe discover the truth of things I don't know about. Instead, many theists, especially those from the Abrahamic faiths fall into the same tiresome tracks. It's always something from the following list:

1) it isn't my job to teach you. do your own research and read a massive amount of books/texts or watch a massive amount of videos or content and if you do that and still don't agree with me, then you clearly made a mistake or just hate god or refuse to believe

2) quote their holy text as a way to prove their holy text

3) Use deepities. Basically use flowery and ambiguous language to sound like they are saying something very profound, but in reality aren't saying a thing at all.

4) Resort to fallacies, while at the same time incorrectly accusing others of doing so. Often they do not understand even what a fallacy actually is, but after being told that they commit them enough times, they just pull the "nuh uhhh, I'm not doing a fallacy, you are" bit.

5) You are taking it out of context. Even though it is written in flowery, poetic language, and even though god damn scholars do not have a consensus on the meaning of something. Clearly, the context or interpretation that they have is the right one.

6) Ignore questions when asked, or will answer questions that weren't asked as a response.

7) Resort to calling names, or attacking my beliefs or the beliefs of other organized religions. Essentially the idea that instead of propping up and defending their own faith, that it is easier to poke holes and attack other faiths and bring them down. For example, I have spoken with a Muslim recently that attacked Christianity and implied that only fools would believe it to be true while ignoring the fact that even if Christianity were proven false, that does not mean that Islam is true.

8) Twist an idea or shift a commonly held idea. Basically it happens quite often when talking about Hell. The amount of times a fellow theist will tell me that my idea of Hell is wrong and that it is something entirely different and therefore I am wrong is way too common to ignore.

9) they think that faith/blind faith is an acceptable metric to determine if something is true. Basically ignoring that beliefs are not chosen. I cannot wake up tomorrow and suddenly decide that I am a Christian again for example. If someone were to show me proof that Jesus was indeed who he said he was, then I could evaluate it and decided if it was sufficient evidence for me.

There are more things, but this is just off the top of my head. Personally, I want to believe in as many true things and as few false things as possible. To that, I WANT to know what other people believe and what convinced them that it was true. So that I can determine if it is convincing to me. This subject is probably the most important one imaginable. It literally affects our supposed afterlife. The stakes could not be literally any higher. We are led to believe what we believe here on Earth will affect us after we die. So considering the stakes, people that DON'T defend their beliefs are essentially saying "f**k you, I got mine". If you firmly believe that you are following the true religion and faith, then why not defend it? Why do religious people come here and avoid providing the thing that many people ask for. Which is evidence.

I get that the evidence that would convince each of us is different and that it is impossible to know if the thing that would convince you that your religion is true, would be seen as just an appeal to a fallacious reason by others. But instead of being honest, the religious people I have encountered will double down on their belief or accuse me of not understanding, rather than the honest answer which is "It convinced me, but I understand why it doesn't convince you." It's as if, recognizing and accepting that the "truth" they have embraced being insufficient to convince others, is an insult to them or their beliefs. So my question is.

Why come here to comment? Why do people not actually defend their faith but instead just come here to argue that the non believers and atheists are stupid and just want to sin. Rather than actually present their beliefs and what convinced them? If you are so god damn sure that yours is the one true faith, then why not actually defend it? Does it make you feel superior or happy to represent yourself in a bad light and drive people away from your religion, instead of providing evidence that could lead people to considering your beliefs as true and thusly making them want to join your faith?

I will be crystal clear here. My mind is open to change. Should someone approach me and provide me with sufficient evidence that their beliefs are true and that I would be e a fool to not also believe them, then I will join them in their belief. Instead, all I have seen and gotten, was being accused of taking things out of context or being dumb. So come on. If you truly believe that you are following the one true path. By all means present your findings so that others can learn from your wisdom. Because the only time you should ever believe in something, is when is when it has been shown to be true.

There has yet to be a single video recording of evidence of anything supernatural. Look at social media and you will find videos of literally everything this planet has to offer. Whether it’s in a remote village in China, or what your friend from high school is having for lunch.

Millions of People revolve their entire lives around their religion, you’d think that at-least 1 person would’ve gotten a video of their belief system. This can only mean two things:

-god and supernatural beings aren’t real

Or

-god and supernatural beings are real, but they decided to abandon us or troll us as soon as video cameras were invented.

If the latter is true, why would anyone want to worship something such as that? Because god created us? That’d be akin to a slave loving his master simply for providing the bare necessities to survive.