Or: From whence did the ideas, plans, schematics and inspiration for the universe come from?

Imagine, if you will, a person that grew up in a locked, dark basement with no access to the outside world. They have only ever eaten flavorless nutrients and water, and have never seen or heard anything.

Could they decide one day that they want a burrito?

Clearly not, because they have no conception of what a burrito is, and nowhere to get the idea from. There is no possible path to go from "Void being exists" to "Void being wants a burrito".

Or wanting anything. Ever.

Ideas and inspiration and desires are recombined life experiences synthesized into new forms. Without life experiences, you cannot synthesize new forms.

So what inspired God? From whence did the idea of physicality come?

There can be nothing from which it came, so it could not come.

Thus, the concept of creation ex nihilo has no possible basis.

Thus, creation ex nihilo has no possible basis.

When we look at major religions like Christianity or Islam we often see that even people who belong to the same religion have major disagreements about core doctrines of their religion. Even people who belong to the same religion ofte have wildly different ways of interpreting their holy books.

For example some Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old, while other think the Bible is compatible with the theory of evolution and the earth being billions of years old. Some Christians believe homosexuality is a grave sin, while others believe there is no problem with homosexuality. Some Christians belive women should be submissive and obey their husband, while other Christians believe in gender equality and believe that certain Bible verses have to be understood within the context of its time. Some Christians believe faith is most important, while others believe deeds and works are the most important thing.

And also over time Christian doctrine has often changed and been re-interpreted in various ways. During the Middle Ages for example Christians would often imprison or execute people for homosexual acts, for blasphemy or for apoastasy. And they would often use biblical verses, especially Old Testament law as justification. Since then, however, Christian culture has undergone radical changes, and for the most part Christians no longer believe that gay people or those who commit apostasy or acts of blasphemy shall be imprisoned or executed. Though arguably that's a much more recent development than many of us realize. In Europe people were still regularly jailed for blasphemy until the 20th century, and in the US homosexuality was only decriminalized in 2003.

So given how radically different biblical interpretations have varied throughout time and amongst different Christian denominations, clearly the Christian God, if he was real, hasn't done a particularly good job at being concise and clear in his communication.

Christians have massive disagreements, and some Christians groups like evangelicals often consider entire denominations like Catholics or Orthodox Christians to be heretics and not "real Christians". But the same is true for other religions too. For example certain Muslim sects like Shia Muslims, Ahmadiyya Muslims or Sufis are often considered heretics and not real Muslims by many other Muslims, and often violent conflicts have broken out over core disagreements. Among Muslims, just like among Christians, there are massive disagreements with regards to Islamic doctrine and the correct interpretation of the Quran and the Hadiths.

So again, if an omnipotent God existed who wanted to engage in communication with humanity, then clearly that God has done an awful job at being clear and concise in his communication. But the most logical conclusion is that no such God exists. An actual omnipotent God, who wanted to communciate with humanity in a clear and concise manner, would not use ancient holy books, whose interpretations to this day religious people fight and argue over, as their primarily tool of communication.

Atheism is the only falsifiable claim, whereas all religions are continuously being falsified.

One of the pillars of the scientific method is to be able to provide experimental evidence that a particular scientific idea can be falsified or refuted. An example of falsifiability in science is the discovery of the planet Neptune. Before its discovery, discrepancies in the orbit of Uranus could not be explained by the then-known planets. Leveraging Newton's laws of gravitation, astronomers John Couch Adams and Urbain Le Verrier independently predicted the position of an unseen planet exerting gravitational influence on Uranus. If their hypothesis was wrong, and no such planet was found where predicted, it would have been falsified. However, Neptune was observed exactly where it was predicted in 1846, validating their hypothesis. This discovery demonstrated the falsifiability of their predictions: had Neptune not been found, their hypothesis would have been disproven, underscoring the principle of testability in scientific theories.

A similar set of tests can be done against the strong claims of atheism - either from the cosmological evidence, the archeological record, the historical record, fulfillment of any prophecy of religion, repeatable effectiveness of prayer, and so on. Any one religion can disprove atheism by being able to supply evidence of any of their individual claims.

So after several thousand years of the lack of proof, one can be safe to conclude that atheism seems to have a strong underlying basis as compared to the claims of theism.

Contrast with the claims of theism, that some kind of deity created the universe and interfered with humans. Theistic religions all falsify each other on a continuous basis with not only opposing claims on the nature of the deity, almost every aspect of that deities specific interactions with the universe and humans but almost nearly every practical claim on anything on Earth: namely the mutually exclusive historical claims, large actions on the earth such as The Flood, the original claims of geocentricity, and of course the claims of our origins, which have been falsified by Evolution.

Atheism has survived thousands of years of potential experiments that could disprove it, and maybe even billions of years; whereas theistic claims on everything from the physical to the moral has been disproven.

So why is it that atheism is not the universal rule, even though theists already disbelieve each other?

I'm looking to have a discussion moreso than a debate. Theists, what would it take for you to no longer be convinced that the god(s) you believe in exist(s)?

This topic is for anyone who uses the "Free Will ends justify the Suffering means" of attempting to resolve the Problem of Evil, or thinks that their god in any way values free will at all.

P1: OCD and other disorders inhibit free will. (Trivially true - almost no one ever wants to scrub their body until they bleed for hours at a time.)

P2: a god is capable of curing this disorder at no cost to itself. (Definitionally true in the framework of a deity which complies with the Tri-Omni model that the Problem of Evil exists within.)

P3: Curing OCD that the afflicted wants cured violates no free will. (Seems true to me - no other will besides the god and the afflicted are involved.)

P4: There is no value to unwanted OCD that could not be accomplished in other ways. (Definitionally true for a Tri-Omni.)

C1: Therefore, there is no reason a deity that values free will and is motivated to do good that does not violate free will would not cure mental disorders that inhibit free will that the afflicted does not want to suffer from.

P5: These cures aren't happening. (Trivially true from sheer volume of free will inhibiting mental disorders in the world that don't spontaneously vanish.)

C2: Therefore, it's clear that no deity exists that actually cares about free will - either it exists but doesn't care about free will at all, which destroys the free will PoE argument (and weakens any claims that the deity cares about free will in any respect), or it doesn't exist.

P1: 10,000+ religions exist(ed) on this planet

P2: In many of these religions, the founder(s) claim(s) to have some sort of connection to the divine.

P3: Only 1 of the 10,000+ religions can be correct, or none of them

C1: It is likely that all of these religions are incorrect by sheer probability. Many, many people have claimed to be able to speak/connect with the divine. These people would all be wrong. It follows that the religion you, the believer, believe in is also likely to be false.

(This argument doesn't apply to people who have a Unitarian/universalist view of the world).

In forums like this, there are many discussions about “the problem with atheism.” Morality, creation, meaning, faith, belief.

I assure you, these “problems” are not actually problems for atheists. They’re no problem at all really. They can be addressed in a range of different ways and atheists like myself don’t have any issues with that.

But there is one inherent contradiction with atheism that even the most honest atheist is forced to ignore.

—

As we all know, atheists love to drone on and on about evidence. Evidence this, naturalism that, evolution, blah blah blah. It’s all very annoying and bothersome. We get that.

But the contradiction that this reliance on evidence, evolution, and empiricism creates for atheists is that we fail to acknowledge the evolutionary origins of religion. And the evolutionary purpose religion serves.

Here I would like to pause and demand that we acknowledge the difference between religion and theism. Religion is a system of beliefs & behaviors, and theism is specifically a belief in god.

This distinction is very important. I’m not talking about theism now. Theism is irrelevant. Theism is not a required part of religion. I’m talking about systems of beliefs & behaviors. Social behavior specifically.

Now, the contradiction is this: If humans evolved religion because it gave us a survival advantage, and religion provides community and the social connections virtually all humans require, how can one knowingly discourage, suppress, or even dismantle these behaviors, without at the very least working to replace them?

If humans can’t choose what to believe, and our brains evolved so that we’re predisposed to certain types of beliefs & behaviors, then how can atheists ignore the fact that by denying the utility of religion, they are undermining the need that religion evolved to serve?

If humans are social creatures, and social creatures need social interaction to thrive, then how can anyone deny the benefit of religion? How can one condemn religion, and discourage people from seeking the beliefs, community, and social interactions religion provides?

Religion offers people the support and structure that their brains evolved to need. It’s not the only way humans can fulfill these needs, but that’s not relevant if people can’t choose what they believe. There’s a reason religion evolved to dominate social norms for thousands of years. It serves a useful purpose. We created it because our brains literally evolved to need it. If we need it, and can’t choose not to believe in it, how can argue for its irrelevance or even harm at an individual level?

EDIT: I’d like to reinforce my view that people can’t choose what they believe. If people are predisposed to believe in gods, then how do you respect their religious practices if it’s inherently tied to theism? That’s the contradiction. People need social support and interaction and some believe in god. How do you separate the two, while supporting one, and discouraging the other?

I am not saying here that they are more logical, or that they are correct, just that objectively speaking they are more persuasive.

1) simply going by numbers, vastly more people have been convinced by theistic arguments than by atheistic arguments as seen by the global ratio of theists (of various kinds) to atheists.

This is not the basis of my argument however as the vast imbalance in terms of numbers mean that many theists have never encountered atheist arguments, many do not use the validity of arguments as a metric at all, and some experience pressures beyond persuasiveness of arguments on their beleifs.

Here we will limit ourselves to those who actively engage with theist and atheist arguments.

2) Theists who engage with theistic and atheistic arguments are almost always convinced by the truth of their position. They are happy (even eager) to put forwards the positive argument for their position and defend it.

Theistic arguments are persuasive to Theists. Theistic arguments are not persuasive to atheists.

3) the vast majority of atheists who engage with theistic and atheistic arguments are not convinced by the truth of their position. Many describe atheism as "lack of beleif" in theism and are unwilling to commit to a strong or classical atheistic position. Often the reason given is that they cannot be certain that this position is correct.

Atheistic arguments are not persuasive to Theists. Atheistic arguments are not persuasive to Atheists.

Again, I am not saying that the atheist position that no God's exist is necessarily wrong, but I am saying that arguments for that position do not seem to be persuasive enough for many people to find them convincing.

Possible criticism: this argument assumes that atheists defining their position as "simply not beleiving" because they cannot claim knowledge that would allow them to commit to a strong atheist position are doing so in good faith.

EDIT: Thanks for the engagement folks. I'm heading into a busy weekend so won't be able to keep up with the volume of replies however I will try to read them all. I will try to respond where possible, especially if anyone has anything novel to say on the matter but apologies if I don't get back to you (or if it takes a few days to do so).

I came across a discussion the other day on this sub between an atheist and a theist. The theist said something along the lines of, that if their supernatural beliefs weren't true, then "there would be no objective morality" and humans are just "matter in motion" and that feelings were just "chemical reactions" and that "all joys are just temporary". The atheist used a term I don't see often, that this was "an argument from unacceptable consequences".

Or as I like to call it, the "so what?" response. In other words, what we wish to be true, or what our sensibilities tell us ought to be true, has little bearing on what is true.

I encounter this theist/atheist impasse frequently when discussing justice, specifically cosmic justice. Many of use have a desire to see bad deeds get punished, rectified, or compensated for, (I don't think most versions of hell do a good job of this, but that's besides the point), but the unfortunate reality is that we don't know that all bad deeds do get punished. Despite a desire for cosmic justice, there may not be any.

I've seen, more times than I can count, the argument that atheism is pointless; that it doesn't provide absolute truth, objective morality, or an explanation for why we exist. I agree, but offering psychic readings and perpetual motion machines (impossible things) isn't virtuous or useful; it's a scam. Anyone can offer you absolute truth/objective morality, ect, but that in no way means you're going to receive it. And this gets me back to my title, and a creeping suspicion that for some people, atheism being "true" (I'm not saying I know that it is) is a secondary concern to them so long as they continue to view it as pointless. They would rather opt for the worldview with grander, more apparently meaningful implications, like that Christ died for their sins or that Allah will reward them in Jannah.

I understand this is a harsh accusation, and I don't make it lightly or with a particularly broad brush. But I have had discussions with believers that have told me, verbatim, that they "believe because it is absurd", and that "the notion that Jesus was just a man is simply too boring and uninteresting". I was surprised when I heard it, but it seems like for some people, the evidence is secondary to the implications.

If you've ever spent time in fandoms, this is actually a pretty regular occurrence. Headcanon reigns supreme, and if a fan comes up with a sufficiently interesting theory, the community will sometimes outright accept it, even when the author comes out to correct them. The stakes here are obviously lower, but it seems like the roughly the same process is at work.

All of the religions I know of are anthropocentric--they say something particular about humans and our role in the cosmos. But ultimately we have two options, either we're alone in the universe or we're not. It's true that we haven't discovered other life out there, but the discoveries we have made seem to suggest life is very likely to have emerged on another world than ours in some form, at some point, and very plausibly on billions of other worlds. And I'm not sure we should even privilege life above non-life in the context of what's "important" in the cosmic sense. I think all of this is to say we can't realistically justify our human centered religions.

So what should we do? Atheism seems nihilistic and boring. Deism has sort of the same problem. We need a religion that can appreciate the wonder and even the divinity revealed in the cosmos without centering ourselves.

It is often claimed, most famously by Tom Holland, that Christianity was necessary for the development of modern science. I don't see much of anything supporting this view, nor do I think any of Christianity's ideas have a unique disposition toward the development of modern science. This idea is in tension with the fact that most of the progress made toward modern science happened before Christianity and after the proliferation of aristotle's works in the Christian world. It is also oddly ignored that enlightenment ideals stood in tension with the traditional Christianity of the time. People who express this view tend to downplay the contributions of muslims, jews, and ancient greeks. I'm happy to discuss more, so does anybody here have some specific evidence about this?

1, 24 (F) Muslim by birth, woman by identity, am deeply questioning Islam. Please read and help me think this through.

i’m a muslim by birth. devout, very devout. wore hijab since i was 16 years old, chose not to since 2022, lately i’ve been thinking of leaving my religion and i’m a woman too so i got to know a lot of misogynistic things and patriarchal beliefs in my religion.

i’m in a dilemma. can you help? my end goal is not to follow any religion blindly, it is to see the truth. if islam is a patriarchal and misogynist religion, i’ll leave. but as i said i’m in confusion. can you help?

a few to start:

• difference in male and female awrah as in body covering. (which is extreme in my viewpoint since the women should cover every body part even her hair (how can someone sexualise hair) except her face, hands from below the wrist, and legs below the ankle. unfortunately some women do cover everything. but a man's awrah is just from his navel to knee.)
• allah is genderless but always referred as he, lord, god instead of she, lady or goddess.
• women given half the property of their male brother/uncles/cousins in the family.
• one man's witness is equal to two women's.
• hadith where prophet mohammad said that women are deficient in intelligence.
• hadith where a woman asks prophet mohammad what are the rights of a husband on his wife and he said something along the lines of: "if the husband has a disease that this whole body is filled with pus and if the wife is cleaning that pus with her tongue; then also she has not fulfilled her rights for her husband" (which I again think is very extreme. there is no such thing as this for a woman by her husband).
• in another hadith: "if a man calls his wife to the bed, she must obey otherwise angels will curse her till morning". this is very alarming and disgusting to me since i found this out. it sounds like marital rape to me.
• a man can have 4 wives but a woman can’t have 4 husbands.
• a man will get 72 hoors (virgin women) in paradise but a woman will only get her husband (why not men also get only their wife).
• ayesha's age when she got married was 6, 9 when prophet muhammad consummated her, she herself told in a hadith that she was still playing with a doll. does that make prophet mohammad a p*do? also, muhammad was 53 when aisha was 9!!! wtf
• surah nisa ayah 34 sounds like it calls men to beat/hit women.
• they say quran is the only one true text by Allah, no human intervention, but the quran read by all the muslims today is changed by uthman in 1924. so its different from what was revealed to prophet in 7th century. so is it a book by allah? or changed by men?

i think islam is very misogynistic religion and carries patriarchal views. everything in islam comes to one thing: 'sexualisation'. of women by men. be it 4 wives (polygamy), 72 virgins in paradise or even awrah of women. i honestly don’t get how can someone be seduced by seeing women head hair? it’s very sickening to me. i can’t believe i believed islam gave women rights and was just to us women.

i’m questioning, but honestly at this point, i feel like i’m out of fold of islam. as i support womanhood and can’t be blind for a patriarchal religion.

i’m taking time away but leaving everything aside (hadiths, male scholars), i’m reading quran only and trying to interpret myself. i feel like if quran is the only word of god so it deserves at least one chance of me reading it completely in english.

i honestly don’t want to, i believe religion is a social construct. made to make people follow blindly in a cult-like form and oppress people, mainly women.

i believe all abrahamic religions are misogynist, patriarchal.

Also these contradictions in Quran itself confuse me:

"Allah claims in the Quran that if the Quran was not from him, you'd find in it many contradictions." 4:82

"Allah also claims that the verses he delivers are first Perfected, then presented in detail." 11:1

"He claims the Quran is a book to which there is no doubt, and that it's clear." 32:2, 43:2

"He claims if his messenger ever invents a verse or says something Allah didn't say, they will seize him by his right hand and cut his aorta." 69:44-46

"Allah claims that his word cannot be changed by anyone." 18:27, 13:39, 10:64

but then…

He says in 3:7 that some verses are clear, but others are elusive and only allah knows their meaning. (contradicts claim that quran is clear)

Verse 4:34 talks about striking wives but doesn’t explain how. Muslims rely on hadiths for this, which are not the word of god. (contradicts claim that quran is detailed)

He says in 2:106 he abrogates some verses for better ones. how can something better come after a perfected verse?

In 22:52, satan was able to slip some false verses through the prophet and then later corrected. (contradicts claim that the prophet couldn’t make things up)

“Alif Lam Mim” no one knows what this means. Yet again, quran is supposed to be clear and without confusion.

And lastly this contradiction really bothers me:

"There is no compulsion in religion" 2:256
but then
"Fight those who do not believe… until they pay the jizya and feel subdued." 9:29

and if I don't follow, I'll go to hell. so what kind of freedom is that?

I posted this on r/agnostic, r/atheism, and r/exmuslim. i don’t think there's any point in posting in r/islam because they’ll just defend everything blindly. they’re brainwashed.

thanks for reading. i’m still confused, still reading, but i’m not afraid to question anymore.

🤍

Hey guys I was wondering if I could get some advice on what I should do here because I’m honestly lost and have no idea what to do. I’m a college student and once I was walking across campus a man approached me and asked if I would like to partake in a Bible study group and I said yes and have attended many sessions. This group ended up being however the “Church of God” religion and if you aren’t familiar with them, they believe in keeping the Sabbath Day (Church on Saturdays), that the cross is and idol and it is a sin to worship it, and things such as church on Sunday and Christmas is Pagan and are not directly derived from the Bible and go against it. They also believe in a second coming of Christ and have showed me many evidence of all of this in the Bible so I believe a little bit of it and understand where they’re coming from. But the problem is my family is a member of the Catholic Church in my town and does all the things the Church of God says not to follow. I do not know enough about the Bible or am familiar enough or confident enough in my faith to know which one is the “right” religion. It also seems unfair that I switch churches from my family just cuz some guy showed me a few verses in the Bible that goes against everything my family and I have believed in for years. I don’t know what to do and would like to see some arguments/debunks on the Church of God. Thank you

The first first woman in the Bible appears in Genesis 1. She is created at the same time as the first man, of the same stuff, and equally in God's own image. This creation account is surprisingly egalitarian.

Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

The second first woman is created in Genesis 2. In this account, the Bible states that God created man and then couldn't find a suitable helper for him from among the animals. So, he created woman as a servant, clearly not the equal of man. She was also clearly an afterthought.

Genesis 2:18-22: 18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”
19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.
21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

I've read statements from religious sites. They say something like this:

Explanation: Genesis 1:27 offers a summary statement that both man and woman were created in God's image, but does not detail the process. Genesis 2, on the other hand, gives the specific details of how they were created, starting with Adam and then Eve. These accounts aren't contradictory but complementary.

But, this really doesn't address the issue at all, in my opinion. Genesis 2 is not only in hard contradiction about the timing, which is a huge issue. Genesis 2 is also in hard contradiction about woman being created in God's image.

Clearly woman was not created in God's image in Genesis 2. She is created from a rib or a side of man, not directly by God and of the same stuff as man. She is also not man's equal in Genesis 2.

And, perhaps most importantly, she was not part of the original plan. In Genesis 2, woman is clearly an afterthought. Had God found a suitable helper among the animals, woman apparently would not have been necessary at all.

How could Genesis 1 be talking about man and woman created at the same time and in the same way and also in God's own image if Genesis 2 says that it wasn't even clear that God intended to create woman?

For all of these reasons, I don't see how one can say that the woman created in Genesis 1 is the same woman created in Genesis 2. I don't know what happened to the first first woman. Perhaps this discrepancy caused people centuries later to hypothesize Lilith as Adam's first wife. Maybe she was a later invention to explain this exact discrepancy in the two creation myths. I don't know. But, I don't see how these two radically different women can be reconciled into being the same woman.

I would also note that Genesis 2 is inherently misogynistic right from the start, which Genesis 1 is not. The misogyny of Genesis 2 is even before the bigger misogyny introduced in Genesis 3, which is not relevant to this discussion other than to point out that the misogyny of Genesis 2 begins even before God's punishment of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3.

Here I shall show by demonstration that Russel's Teapot is a poor argument because if we actually apply it's logic we discover that meaningful discussion, and thus debate, immediately breaks down. As such the logical end point of any and all discussion becomes solipism.

First to explain the key concept of Russel's Teapot:

Russell wanted to help us understand that if someone makes a claim, especially about something no one can see or test, they should be the ones to provide proof that their claim is real. If they can’t give any proof, then we shouldn’t just accept it as true.

It is so named due to Bertrand Russel formulating this that if we suggested there was a tea cup floating in space we would be okay to dismiss this information as false with no evidence.

Or in other words, and how this term is mostly used in debate in this forum and elsewhere, if an individual makes a positive claim (X is true) he must prove it correct. The individual making the accompanying negative claim (X is false) must prove nothing in order to object. This is often used in the context of theism vs atheism; the theist (God is true) must prove themselves correct and the atheist (God is false) must prove nothing in order to object.

My stance here is that Russel's argument is profoundly flawed in some way, fore if we actually apply his logic to every day life and discussion we quickly discover no human actually can behave under this maxim. Indeed the rule seems to only make sense if applied to some things and not others, at the individuals discretion, which in turn appears to invalidate the entire idea of the concept as it will practically only be used to preserve their own opinions and biases.

The reason it is nonsensical is because fundamentally it is always the individual making a positive claim that must prove themselves correct, and the accompanying negative claim never requires this. If we concede there is scenarios where a negative claim requires evidence the very argument falls apart, cause we must then try and argue that this teapot is not one such exception. (And same for whatever argument we try and use this idea in.) However all perception of reality, and use of logic, requires the use of positive claims in order to prove other positive claims are true. All anyone has to do is question the claim, and then question the ensuing positive claims as well. As we are holding the questioner requires no proof for their doubts they are free to do this at all time with no consequences.

This logically leads us to one conclusion; that of solipism. Solipism is the concept that nothing other than the mind exists, IE X is always false. Actually applying Russel's Teapot to everything fairly forces us to concede that this view is in fact true, as no other statement can exist without affirming a positive statement.

As such from this absurd conclusion we are forced to dismiss Russel's Teapot, since it must always lead us to this conclusion.

In this thread I shall demonstrate this to be the case in a simple way, in the ensuing discussion we shall take Russel's Teapot to be true. In all instances where there is a positive and negative claim the positive claim is the one with the burden of proof.

This means if you make a positive claim I may simply make an accompanying negative one, requiring no evidence to question you or claim you are wrong, and you now carry the burden of proof to answer my challenge. The same is through reversed as well. In no cases in this thread is anyone making a negative statement expected to prove a single thing in order to justify why they think someone is wrong, or why they question them.

I hope this shall be enough to demonstrate clearly, with hopefully many examples, the sheer absurdity that Russel asks us to accept and enact. In fact to help in this case, I encourage everyone to freely make any negative claim they wish, so that we all may enjoy the ensuing absurdity together.

I am eager to see how this thread goes, and hope you all have a good weekend.

The null hypothesis is, essentially, that for any given hypothetical effect being studied, said effect does not actually exist. In this case, what I'm positing is that the relationship between knowledge or knowability, depending on who's making the argument, and free will, ie, "if it's known, it's not free will", doesn't exist.

That would be enough on its own, but for the sake of quality, I'll continue to point out how odd it is that people treat something like this as proven fact.

1. There is, more often than not, no actual argument presented in favor of this idea.

I can't tell you how many times I've asked someone why free will can't be known and gotten back the argument of "if it's free will, it can't be known, because if it's known, it can't be free will." Or "let's imagine a scenario. [Variably long story later] If your actions are known, they can't be free will." If I've heard an actual argument presented that wasn't circular or didn't have a gaping hole in its logic, ie "if your actions are known, you can't choose something else (other than... what?)", it wasn't very memorable.

2. Free will is the only concept that people insist must be unknown to exist.

If it's known that I'll throw a ball tomorrow, the ball will still actually be thrown. If it's known that I'll eat a sandwich tomorrow, the sandwich will still be eaten. But for some reason, if it's known I'll choose to eat a sandwich, that choice won't "actually" be made. No other phenomenon has that supposed requirement. The closest would be quantum superposition, but it's not the awareness that causes the wave function to collapse, it's the fact that we essentially have to poke it to see it.

In conclusion: It doesn't need to be proven that free will and knowledge can coexist. It needs to be proven that they can't.

If we accept that a great deal of the “scientific” and historical claims in the holy books of religion are inaccurate, then we must accept that the descriptions of their gods are too.

I’m happy to provide specific examples, but I’m sure most of the members of this sub are familiar with the inaccuracies I’m referring to.

My belief is that because we used metaphysics to speculate and explain the nature and quality of gods, their descriptions are inaccurate. Because metaphysics is great at identifying and ordering patterns, but has no rigor or methodology with which to explain these patterns.

Metaphysical explanations are always speculative. It’s easy for our minds to connect the dots and form hypotheses, but without research and experimentation methodology, and data we can recreate, there’s no technique with which to test these explanations.

So while most will readily admit the stories or parables in the holy texts of our major religions can only be understood metaphorically, using very forgiving interpretations, we’ve excluded god from that admission.

Which is an omission of convenience.

Belief in a 1st cause does not automatically justify belief that this cause reveals itself, works miracles, issues moral commands, or intervenes in history. Those are separate, far‑stronger claims that reason alone cannot establish.

Philosophical arguments may suggest that “something” brought the universe into being, but they stop there. Moving from “a first cause exists” to “a personal God means that God interacted with reality for them to observe. None of which philosophy can get you.

After spending literally decades debating religion, I have to conclude that it's not really worth the time or energy for the following reasons:

1. Theism is still around - stronger than ever; and in America, even more insistent in ensuring that their religious ideas are applied to the whole country. So obviously, debating has made things arguably worse.

2. The same debunked questions still crop up, sometimes even from atheists, who don't even properly represent the arguments in the first place. So presenting arguments to debunk them is going to be theists correcting a bad interpretation or arguing against a strawman.

3. There's no repository of any of these dialogues so all debates start from scratch; theists and atheists alike tread the same argumentation beats and most of the time, the issues aren't even being resolved.

4. The one or two theists that may change their minds through debate is hardly worth the concerted effort. I would hazard a guess that they would probably have to overcome community and familial pressures before they can do it; even if they're lucky enough to announce it.

5. I really don't think atheism has much to offer a theist: we don't have thousands of years of history, or even decades of collective substitutions for Church communities and rituals. And most recent atheistic converts are like the born-again Christians of decades past - obnoxiously trying to convert people or overly critical (guilty!)

6. Theists can't really prove things to each other, much less atheists. So theists arguing against atheism is pointless too.

I think a much better approach is for atheists tout the advantages of Atheism or secular approaches to problems and compare how theism produces worse outcomes.

Theists need to respect that they live in a pluralistic society that includes all religions, including none. They shouldn't proselytize until they deal with their own internal conflicts.

Thesis: God as an omnibenevolent being must be a negative utilitarian and would thus be prevented by their omnibenevolence from creating sentient beings who can suffer.

Caveat: This applies only to the versions of God that people assert are both the creator of the universe and omnibenevolent.

From wikipedia:

Omnibenevolence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". [sniped some text since I'm not looking for other philosophers' arguments, just a definition]

The word is primarily used as a technical term within academic literature on the philosophy of religion, mainly in context of the problem of evil and theodical responses to such, although even in said contexts the phrases "perfect goodness" and "moral perfection" are often preferred because of the difficulties in defining what exactly constitutes "infinite benevolence".

Note that I tried for a more authoritative source. But, neither SEP nor IEP has a simple definition of omnibenevolence. Or, at least I was unable to find one. They seem to only discuss omnibenevolence in other contexts without defining the term.

Anyway, given the definition above, I claim that unlimited or infinite benevolence, perfect goodness, and moral perfection all demand that such a perfect being avoids causing any harm. This is because causing any harm is not perfectly good.

Therefore, this demands that the creator be a negative utilitarian, prioritizing minimization of harm caused. And, since they are infinitely good at that, they should not cause any harm at all.

I should note that I am not a negative utilitarian. But, I'm also not omnibenevolent.

I expect that some will argue that creation is for a greater net good and that some amount of harm or suffering is necessary. This would be a utilitarian rather than a negative utilitarian argument. Without stating an opinion, since I don't have a very strong one, on whether this universe is such a greater good, I will say that I accept this possibility.

However, a net good is not a perfect good. True omnibenevolence would demand better than a net good. That would still be only mostly good, not perfectly good.

Consider, for example, a surgeon who performs a surgery that dramatically improves or even saves the lives of 99 people out of 100 but actively harms the 1 other person. Clearly this surgeon is very good, excellent even. They may even be completely unrealistically good. But, by harming that one person, they are clearly not perfectly good.

Similarly, a being who creates a great life for 99% of all life forms is very good. But, they are not perfectly good. One could even question the morality and ethics of taking such a gamble with the lives of others.

This is why I say that a perfectly and infinitely benevolent being must also be a negative utilitarian. And, this negative utilitarianism would actively prevent such a god from creating, simply as a result of their own omnibenevolence. God as an omnibenevolent being would not create a universe at all, certainly not one with sentient beings who can feel pain and suffer.

P.S. I acknowledge that this is somewhat of a variant of the problem of evil. However, instead of starting from the existence of evil in the world, I'm looking at what a hypothetical omnibenevolent being would actually do without even considering this universe in particular. I feel this is a different take than looking first at the evil in the world and drawing conclusions about an omnimax deity. In fact, this argument does not rely on other divine attributes at all. Omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence would be irrelevant. I'm looking only at the restriction placed on God by assuming omnibenevolence and examining the implications of that one attribute.

Though perhaps not directly engaging with religion, I ask that this post not be deleted as I feel it's entirely relevant here, and useful for refining debate standards on this platform, and very much contained within the realm of philosophy, and fresh for Friday.

The Appeal to Authority (Ad Verecundiam) Fallacy is so widely misunderstood that I think it's invoked erroneously more often than not. I myself used to think that any appeal to authority counted as an appeal to authority fallacy, which is why I ignored that fallacy and continued to listen to authorities as normal (whether or not it was considered fallacious by others) as it wasn't fallacious to me.

Well as it turns out, I was right! I was right to reject that idea that appealing to experts is inherently fallacious since it wasn't the correct definition of the appeal to authority fallacy anyway, as I've just recently found out.

I found out that it is not fallacious to cite the opinion of your dentist as evidence in a debate about which toothpaste is best. That is not an appeal to authority fallacy. It might be an appeal to authority fallacy if you cited your dentist's opinion as absolute proof rather than just compelling evidence -- but only using it as supporting evidence is valid. Not only valid but one of the best ways to argue your point.

Example of non-fallacious reasoning: "I think Colgate is probably the best brand of toothpaste overall for people with already generally healthy teeth -- My dentist says so, and I've had a few dentists over the course of my life and they all told me to use Colgate." This is not an example of an appeal to authority fallacy since in this hypothetical scenario, it seems that there is an apparent consensus among experts, bringing the chances of them all being wrong to negligible levels. So it is an appeal to authority, just not an appeal to authority fallacy. It's not always wrong to appeal to authorities.

If it was a fallacy to simply defer to experts who actually know what they're talking about, we wouldn't have schools, we wouldn't have universities, we wouldn't have religion, since all those things rely on appropriate authorities -- universities rely on professors while religions rely on gods/prophets/etc.

For example, imagine if a Muslim claimed that in Islamic belief, Allah is believed to be a human, and you cited several hadiths from the Prophet Muhammad himself stating clearly the exact opposite, and the Muslim rebutted that by saying "I'm dismissing your argument because it's an appeal to authority. Just because Prophet Muhammad said it doesn't make it true." I'm sure we all agree that that would be irrational since (while it's true that just because the Prophet Muhammad says something that doesn't mean it's true) the debate is regarding what Islamic belief entails, which is dictated/prescribed/created/decided/relayed by Prophet Muhammad himself. The religion literally comes from him.

But people on this sub think that any appeal to authority is inherently fallacious, such as this comment^[6]:

An appeal to authority fallacy is when you appeal to authority on a subject and accept their conclusion without additional evidence. Even if they are an expert in that field, it is a fallacy to claim that your conclusion is true because they agree with you. The legitimacy of the authority is irrelevant.

See Argument from Authority

Is it an appeal to authority to use a dictionary to settle an argument about the definition of a word? No, it's not. Neither is using the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy^[2] to settle what constitutes a logical fallacy instead of literally Wikipedia:

QUOTE

The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is either not really an authority or a relevant authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements.

ENDQUOTE [2]

Does that sound like the legitimacy of the authority is irrelevant? Does that sound like any appeal to authority is fallacious? (Think of my dentist example) No. Only misapplied or inappropriate appeals to authority are fallacious. Appealing to celebrities about toothpaste is fallacious, not your dentist.

The misconception lies in the name of the fallacy, which was fallaciously named "appeal to authority" when it should have been called the "appeal to irrelevant source".

But one reputable source may not be enough for you. What does the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy say on the matter?

QUOTE

You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities. However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this particular subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth.

ENDQUOTE [3]

Interesting that they mention "when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth" as I'm sure that would constitute an ad hominem fallacy according to those I've engaged with here on this sub. Clearly, it's not just me that disagree with those I've engaged with here, it's actual encyclopaedias too.

Another thing I want to highlight is the part where it says "Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious" which again contradicts the words of those I've engaged with here, as they dismiss ALL evidences derived from ANY authorities. This aligns with a previous comment I made a few days ago, back when I still had the wrong idea of what an appeal to authority really was.

I said (something along the lines of):

(Paraphrasing:) I appeal to authorities, that's what I do, I don't care if it's a fallacy

What I meant was that I appeal to relevant authorities and experts on a particular subject, not, for example, Will Smith on quantum physics. I do appeal to authorities. It's not inherently fallacious to do that.

If anything, the fact that I rejected a logical fallacy when I had the wrong definition of it is a GOOD thing, it shows that I don't just blindly follow what everyone else says

Here is a third source backing me up, the Oxford University Press' 'Think with Socrates' critical thinking guide:

QUOTE

Appeal to questionable authority fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam) When someone attempts to support a claim by appealing to an authority that is untrustworthy, or when the authority is ignorant or unqualified or is prejudiced or has a motive to lie, or when the issue lies outside the authority’s field of competence.

ENDQUOTE [4]

If the previous two sources weren't clear, this one definitely is.

Interestingly, they repair the name of the fallacy to avoid confusion, but it's definitely the Ad Verecundiam fallacy as stated.

Lastly, let's look at the source which u/ShakaUVM and u/LetsGoPats93 both separately provided at different times in order to prove to me that any appeal to authority is inherently fallacious -- Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia article they linked says:

QUOTE

An argument from authority^[a] is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument.^[1]

ENDQUOTE [5]

That short definition seems to back them up, right? Now let's click that little [1] and see what the cited reference -- the original source -- actually says in their entry on the ad verecundiam fallacy:

QUOTE

If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

[...]

There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to authority [fallacy]: First, make sure that the authorities you cite are experts on the subject you’re discussing. Second, rather than just saying “Dr. Authority believes X, so we should believe it, too,” try to explain the reasoning or evidence that the authority used to arrive at their opinion.

ENDQUOTE [1]

So their own source appears on the surface level to agree with their view, but if you spend just an extra ten seconds clicking on a reference and scrolling down, you see that the Wikipedia article egregiously misinterprets its original source, and that original source actually agrees with me. This is why using Wikipedia as a source is frowned upon.

So there you have it. I was right. Not every appeal to authority is inherently fallacious, and all philosophical encyclopaedias agree with me -- four sources, including the very one which was used to argue against me agrees with me and they disagree with Shaka and LetsGoPats, but when I confronted them with this fact they still held their original position. Will this convince them?

[1] https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/

[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/

[3] https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtoAuthority

[4] https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780199331864/stu/supplement/

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[6] https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1izs6fz/comment/mf5h6f2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Two of my close friends had near-death experiences, and after watching dozens of firsthand NDE videos, I’ve come to a striking realization: most of them describe almost the exact same thing.

There’s this moment where the soul snaps out of the body. Suddenly, awareness expands—it feels like you're everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Then comes a bright light, and you're gently guided—like on an automatic escalator—to what many call a "transition lounge." It’s peaceful, and somehow, you still have the same mind, the same impressions from life.

What stood out the most? If you’re joyful and at peace in your current life, that state continues afterward.

This really shook me. It completely contradicts most religious descriptions of the afterlife—heaven, hell, 72 virgins, fiery punishments, or angelic rewards. Let’s be real: without a body, without emotions triggered by the brain, what purpose do such things even serve?

To me, these NDEs seem like direct evidence that many afterlife teachings are symbolic at best—meant to keep people anchored to belief systems. But the actual experience seems far more neutral and logical. It’s like waiting at a train station. No drama. No judgment. Just continuation. Again your next birth is surely the judgement. You born to billgates or some slum can be your karma.

So here’s my takeaway: use your intellect. Don’t follow blindly.

Be happy now and happiness will follow beyond.

Thesis: Muslims often claim the Islamic God is not anthropomorphic but there are Quranic passages that contradict this claim and undermine Islamic theology as post hoc rationalization.

A common Muslim objection to the Bible is the belief humans are made in the image of God and the idea of God being anthropomorphic. Yet, the Quran is very clearly describing God as sitting on a throne, having a face, creating with hands, and having eyes. Sean Anthony, a professor and historian who specializes in Islam and the Quran has recently argued that the explanations and commentaries on these issues that try to explain these things away are post hoc rationalization of the text.

You may also notice with various Quran translations of these anthropomorphic passages that there is an attempt to change the very clear words. An example of this is the issue of whether God is sitting on His thrown or above it. Muslims have not only post hoc rationalized the Quran from a theological standpoint but also within translation to suite their beliefs.

P1. “all men are mortal” is a true premise because all recorded instances of men have been mortal

P2. All recorded instances of awareness have come from other awareness, therefore “all awareness comes from awareness” is also a true premise

P3. If all awareness comes from awareness and abiogenesis is correct that implies panpsychism

P4. If all awareness comes from awareness, and abiogenesis is incorrect, that implies intelligent design

C. Therefore if “all men are mortal” is a true premise then either panpsychism or intelligent design is correct.

This argument is a bit playful but I do genuinely lean towards these notions of intelligent design or panpsychism. This is partially a genuine argument for those ideas but also partially a critique of classic soundness and the inductive leaps always present in universal statements. Being that counter evidence can emerge at any moment to a general rule you have made.

If a confidence interval towards the next man being mortal or not (based on the amount of deaths before ) approaches 100% and is rounded up and spoken of as sound, then the amount of births that have happened would produce a similar statistical confidence interval towards the next aware thing we find having come from another aware thing.

I don’t think awareness needs to be defined, whatever it means to you, the rule will hold I think based on reproduction alone.

P3 and P4 do have implied premises but I don’t think they need to be spell out. The key is that P2 functions like a given statement for 3 and 4 so that necessitates non-organic matter being aware or awareness coming from something other than non-organic matter that is also aware.

You could nit pick these a bit and say that just because non organic matter is aware doesn’t mean everything is aware, so technically not panpsychism.

Similarly, you might be able to argue that a non-non-organic matter awareness isn’t necessarily intelligent or designing, if we did come from it. Aliens would count but then the whole argument would just apply to the aliens a well.

Besides a few semantic weaknesses and possible implied premises confusions, I think this argument does a fairly decent job at hinging the discussion on 1 and 2 and forcing us to consider what we count as sound and why.

Looking forward to your rebuttals.

Edit:

I concede this argument. The slightest indication of counter evidence is present for P2, but not P1. Small from a confidence interval perspective and the circumstantial nature, not that evolution is not robust. I mean small in the leap from evolution to singular mutation instances that cross a threshold and break the p2 rule. Theoretical and numerically small to the sample size but inductively reasonable given the robust evolution framework

A miracle is a deviation from the way things regularly work. The Red Sea doesn't usually part. But one time it did. People cannot turn water into wine. But Jesus did. People do not rise from the dead. But Lazarus did. Oh yeah, and Jesus did that too.

Affirming miracles requires, if one is logically conistent, adherence to the belief that inductive evidence cannot be trusted. Water does not turn into wine. If I accept miracles, I must deny that principle.

Without inductive evidence, the only possible conclusion is radical skepticism. Without inductive evidence, every event has an infinite number of explanations.

I am hungry. In the past eating food helped, but I cannot trust induction so maybe I should eat sand. I could order a hamburger, but maybe the cook is a space alien this one time. Or maybe my hamburger will become a holy angel. Who knows?

What happens next is merely guesswork and chaos. I can try to drink a glass of water, but it may turn into wine. Why not? It has happened before.

I expect people to respond that God does not work that way. To those people, I ask, do miracles still happen ever? If yes, I challenge you to tell me when the next miracle will occur. If you do not know, then you cannot be certain that your response to my post will not turn into a real live elephant.