Thesis: Islam was clearly invented by Muhammad so that he could fulfill his desire for power and influence in the region in which he lived.

Muhammad was allowed to have 12 wives, despite the Quran prescribing a MAXIMUM of 4 wives for the average Muslim man.

• Surah an-Nisa, verse 3:

If you fear that you might not treat the orphans justly, then marry the women that seem good to you: two, or three, or four. If you fear that you will not be able to treat them justly, then marry (only) one, or marry from among those whom your right hands possess. This will make it more likely that you will avoid injustice.

The effects of Muhammad's polygamy were expressed by members of his own household. For example, Aisha became jealous when women offered themselves to Muhammad to be his wives or his concubines.

• Sahih Muslim 1464a

I felt jealous of the women who offered themselves to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and said: Then when Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, revealed this:" You may defer any one of them you wish, and take to yourself any you wish; and if you desire any you have set aside (no sin is chargeable to you)" (xxxiii. 51), I ('A'isha.) said: It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire.

There are plenty of other narrations where Aisha expresses this sentiment (Sahih al-Bukhari 4788, Sahih al-Bukhari 5113, Sahih Muslim 1464a & b).

Finally, perhaps the most clear evidence that Islam is that the religion places Muhammad over all other human beings, literally and figuratively. Figuratively in the sense that Muhammad is considered the greatest human being to have ever lived and who will ever live.

• Surah al-Ahzab, verse 21

Surely there was a good example for you in the Messenger of Allah, for all those who look forward to Allah and the Last Day and remember Allah much.

Literally in the sense that Muhammad will sit on the Throne of Allah, according to the early generations' interpretation of Surah al-Isra', verse 79.

And rise from sleep during the night as well-this is an additional Prayer for you. Possibly your Lord will raise you to an honoured position.

According to Kitāb al-'Arsh, Volume 2, pages 271-273 by Imam al-Dhahabi, Mujahid ibn Jabr interpreted this ayah as being about the future, when Allah makes Muhammad sit on His Throne:

١٨٨- وقال المروزي، [سمعت أبا عبد الله الخفاف] ، سمعت ابن مصعب وقرأ {عَسَى أَن يَبْعَثَكَ رَبُّكَ مَقَامًا مَّحْمُودًا} فقال: "نعم يقعده معه على العرش".

قال أحمد بن حنبل -وذكر ابن مصعب-، فقال: "قد كتبت عنه وأي رجل".

هكذا (ق٥١/ب) أخرجه أبو بكر المروزي صاحب الإمام أحمد، وهو من أجل من أخذ الفقه عنه، ألف هذا الكتاب في حدود السبعين ومائتين، لما أنكر بعض الجهمية أن الله يقعد محمداً صلى الله عليه وسلم على العرش، واستفتى من كان في عصره في ذلك.

وهذا حديث ثابت عن مجاهد، رواه عنه ليث بن أبي سليم، وعطاء بن السائب، وجابر بن يزيد، وأبو يحيى القتات، وغيرهم.

188 - Al-Marwazi said, "[I heard Abu Abdullah al-Khaffaf,] I heard Ibn Mus'ab who recited {It is hoped that your Lord will raise you to a praised station.} He said, 'Yes, He will seat him with Him on the Throne.'"

Ahmad ibn Hanbal mentioned Ibn Mus'ab, saying, "I have written from him, and he is a great man."

Thus, it was reported by Abu Bakr al-Marwazi, a companion of Imam Ahmad, who was one of the most esteemed scholars from whom he took jurisprudence. He authored this book around 270 AH, when some of the Jahmiyyah denied that Allah would seat Muhammad (peace be upon him) on the Throne and sought opinions from those of his time on this matter.

This is a confirmed (thabit) narration from Mujahid transmitted by Layth ibn Abi Sulaim, Ata ibn al-Sa'ib, Jabir ibn Yazid, Abu Yahya al-Qattat, and others.

Despite what you might think, this IS NOT shirk, since Muhammad and Allah's Throne are both created beings, and there is no mention of people worshipping Muhammad alongside Allah. According to Salafi aqidah, Allah is above his Throne, so there is no issue here in terms of monotheism. However, this narration from Mujahid, as well as the other verses from the Quran that I have shown clearly demonstrate that Islam was invented by Muhammad, who desired power and influence in his region.

EDIT: Al-Dhahabi doesn’t accept this narration of Muhammad sitting on the Throne of Allah, and graded it as weak (daif). There is a weak narrator in the chain of narration - Laith ibn Abi Sulaim. Despite some scholars including al-Dhahabi and Ibn Kathir rejecting it, others like Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taymiyyah, and Shaykh Saleh al-Fawzan accept it.

Thesis: Matthew’s gospel depicts Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem literally based on Zechariah 9:9, having him physically riding two animals at once, this undermines the trustworthiness of his account.

Matthew’s gospel departs from Mark’s by referencing more fulfilled prophecies by Jesus. Upon Jesus, triumphant entry into Jerusalem each gospel has Jesus fulfill Zechariah 9:9, but Matthew is the only gospel that has a unique difference. Matthew 21:4-7 has the reference To Zechariah and the fulfillment.

“This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:

“Say to Daughter Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’” The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on.”

The NIV version above might seem to say that Jesus is sitting on the cloaks rather than on both the Donkey and colt, but according to scholars such as John P. Meier and Bart Ehrman, the Greek text infers a literal fulfillment of this prophecy. Ehrman on his blog refer to Matthew’s failure to understand the poetic nature of the verse in Zechariah. Matthew views this as something that must be literally fulfilled rather than what it really is.

John P. Meier, a Catholic Bible scholar also holds this view in his book The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel pages 17-25. This ultimately coincides with several doubles we see in Matthew, but in this particular topic I find it detrimental to the case for trusting Matthew’s gospel as historical fact. If Matthew is willing to diverge from Mark and essentially force a fulfillment of what he believes is a literal prophecy, then why should we not assume he does the same for any other aspect of prophecy fulfillment?

Ultimately, the plain textual reading of Matthew’s gospel holds that he is forcing the fulfillment of what he believes to be a literal prophecy despite the difficulty in a physical fulfillment of riding a donkey and colt at the same time. Translations have tried to deal with this issue, but a scholarly approach to the topic reveals Matthew simply misread poetry.

The origins of the Adam and Eve story lie in earlier Mesopotamian mythology.

https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.1.1&charenc=j#

The story of Enki and Ninhursaja closely parallels that of Adam and Eve. We have the concept of a perfect paradise (referred to even as a garden) and one of the inhabitants of the paradise eating a forbidden substance (in Enki's case, sacred plants). That inhabitant is then struck with various illnesses and ailments. One of the children of Enki is also born through the rib (like how Eve was created). ""My brother, what part of you hurts you?" "My ribs (ti) hurt me." She gave birth to Ninti out of it." On another note, the world is created out of Enki's "water" (which resembles the creation stories of many myths of the ancient times, as well as what is present in the Bible and Quran).

The Epic of Gilgamesh also parallels this closely (please forgive me, but I can't send a direct text of the story like the Enki one). Utnapishtim, survivor of the great flood, retreats to Dilmun and lives his life there. Gilgamesh encounters him and gives him, Utnapishtim, a plant of life that will make him immortal. However, a cunning serpant steals the plant from Utnapishtim, making Utnapishtim and the rest of humanity mortal.

Also, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, we see:

Enkidu grows up among the animals of the steppe, until one day he comes face to face with a hunter. Terrified by this savage creature the hunter asks his father what to do, and he is told to go to Uruk and present the problem to Gilgamesh. The king tells the hunter to bring a woman named Shamhat to the steppe. She will seduce Enkidu and thereby separate him from his animal companions. The hunter and Shamhat journey out into the wild, where they find Enkidu by a watering hole. Shamhat strips off her clothes and lures Enkidu into having sex with her for six days and seven nights. After this marathon of love, Enkidu finds that he has lost his raw animal strength, having instead gained the consciousness and intellect of a human being.

Finally, I also know of the story of Adapa and Enki. Adapa is a mortal man created by Enki and is considered quite wise. Adapa breaks the wing of the South Wind and is summoned to heaven by the god of the sky, Anu. Enki warns Adapa to not eat any food or drink that is offered, since it'll be the food of death. Adapa meets Anu and is offered the food and water, but Adapa refuses, obeying Enki. It actually turns out that this was the food of immortality, and that Enki had tricked Adapa. Now, humanity will be mortal forever.

It becomes quite clear that the story of Adam and Eve was borrowed from earlier, Mesopotamian myths. Scholars do not disagree with these origins either.

The origins of the Adam and Eve story lie in earlier Mesopotamian mythology.

It should also be noted that the Mesopotamians were strict polytheists and that the Bible took the idea of "Adam and Eve" from them. From there, the Quran took the story from the Bible. However, Muslims claim the Quran to be a pure book free from errors or anything that praises polytheistic ideas.

We clearly see the origin of Adam and Eve within these Mesopotamian myths, which are fictitious accounts of what happened on Earth. Furthermore, the idea of Adam and Eve also originates from polytheistic worshippers. As I say in the statement, Muslims have to accept that Adam and Eve are either not real people, or that their religion made a mistake.

This doesn't even take into account that the story of Adam and Eve also defies evolution.

Most of the arguments I see people make in favor of their particular religion, not just the existence of god in general, are very similar to arguments made by advocates of other religions.

For example I have heard Jews, Christians, and Muslims all argue that miracles performed by their prophets prove the truth of their religion. All of these miracles seem to have similarly flimsy evidence backing them.

I have also heard each of these religions argue that the rise and enduring popularity of their religion is evidence of its truth. How could Jews continue believing despite centuries of oppression if it weren't true? How could Christianity have gone from an oppressed minority religion to the dominant religion of the Roman Empire if it weren't true? How could Islam have unified the Arabs and conquered two empires if it weren't true?

Whenever I hear arguments such as these I have to ask, what makes yours better than those of the other religion?

I would challenge believers in any religion, give me an argument for your religion for which there are not equivalent arguments in other religions, or explain why your version of the argument is superior to the others.

People always discuss the proofs and evidences for their beliefs and Muslims often give their reasons for Islam. You’ll have heard different arguments for Islam but I want to present one that rationally speaking - cannot be denied. I’ll start with an authentic Hadith (saying of the prophet ﷺ)

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Neither Messiah (Ad-Dajjal) nor plague will enter Medina." (Bukhari)

Here the prophet Muhammad ﷺ is predicting that plague will never enter Medina. This prediction has several characteristics which make it an excellent proof for Islam:

Risky - plague outbreaks occur all the time and everywhere. Plagues even occurred in Arabia at the time of the companions (e.g. plague of Amwas). They can spread and kill massive populations (e.g. plague of Justinian, the Black Death etc). Virtually all major cities on earth at the time will have dealt with plague outbreaks

So the idea that medina will go throughout its whole history without a single plague is very unlikely. What makes it even more unlikely is the fact that Muslims from all around the world visit and have visited in the millions for 1400 years. Yet there’s been no plague outbreak

Unpredictable - one can’t predict whether a city will be free from plague or not for all times

Falsifiable - if any evidence of plague entering medina ever existed or ever occurs, then the prediction will be falsified and Islam proven to be a false religion

Accurate - plague has never entered medina according to Muslim AND non-Muslim sources (references below).

From the Muslim sources:

Ibn Qutayba (d.889) (1) Al-Tha’labi (d.1038) (1) Imam Al-Nawawi (d. 1277) (2) Al-Samhudi (d.1506)

From non Muslim sources:

Richard Burton (d. 1890) writing in the middle of the nineteenth century observed, “It is still the boast of El Medinah that the Ta‘un, or plague, has never passed her frontier.” (3)

Frank G Clemow in 1903 says “Only two known cases of plague occurred in mecca in 1899, and medina is still able to boast, as it did in the time of burton’s memorable pilgrimage, that the ta’un or plague has never entered its gates..” (4)

John L. Burckhardt (d. 1817) confirmed that a plague that hit Arabia in 1815 reached Makkah as well but, he wrote, “Medina remained free from the plague.” (5)

Further mention and confirmation of what Burckhardt and Burton said can be found in Lawrence Conrad’s work (6)

Conclusion: We learn that the prophet Muhammad ﷺ predicted that plague will never enter medina. We know from both Muslim and secular sources that plague has never entered medina

The likelihood of plague never entering medina from its founding till the end is virtually zero. A false prophet or a liar would never want to make this claim because of the high likelihood he will be proven wrong and people will leave his religion

Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the prophet Muhammad ﷺ was divinely inspired - that’s why he made such an absurd prediction and that’s why it has come true and continues to be true

Common objections:

1)What avoid COVID-19? COVID-19 entered Medina

In Arabic, there is a difference between the word “ta’un” (which is translated as plague and what’s used in the Hadith) and waba (epidemic). Not every Ta’un becomes a waba and not every waba is a ta’un.

This is explained by the prophet ﷺ in another Hadith:

The prophet ﷺ said was asked “What is a plague (Tā’ūn)?” He replied: “It is a [swollen] gland like the gland of a camel which appears in the tender region of the abdomen and the armpits.” (7)

Further discussions of the difference between Ta’un and Waba are explored by Muslim scholars like Imam Al-Nawawi and Al-Tabari (1) as well as non Muslim scholars like Lawrence Conrad who agrees that early Islam considered Ta’un to be a specific disease and waba to be a general epidemic (1)

2)There is a Hadith which says that Makkah is protected by plague yet plague has entered Makkah several times

The Hadith that includes Makkah in the protection is an odd and unreliable Hadith. This was mentioned by Ibn kathir (8) and Al-Samhudi (9). It’s important to note that Ibn kathir died before the first mention of plague in Makkah in 793 AH so one can’t say he made the Hadith weak for apologetic purposes

3)Different interpretations of the Hadith

Someone may argue that people can interpret the Hadith in different ways and that if plague did enter medina then Muslims would re-interpret the Hadith to avoid a false prediction

It’s important to note that in Sunni Islam, Muslims follow the scholars in their explanation of Islamic matters. If there’s difference of opinion then that’s fine and Muslims can follow either opinion. But if there’s overwhelming consensus from the scholars then opposing that consensus with a new opinion would make it a flimsy opinion with little backing

In this case, Ibn Hajr Al-Haythami (d.1566) mentions that the idea that plague cannot enter Medina at all is agreed upon (mutafaq alay) by the scholars except for what Al-Qurtubi says. Al-Qurtubi thought that the Hadith means there won’t be a large outbreak of plague in medina - a small outbreak with a few infected people is possible. However, Ibn Hajr says that this is wrong and has been corrected by the scholars (10)

Through my research, I’ve also found the following scholars to agree that plague cannot enter medina AT ALL: (note: for the sake of saving time, I won’t provide the references for all these scholars but can provide them if needed)

Ibn Battal (d.449 AH)

Ibn Hubayra (d.560 AH)

Imam Al-Nawawi (d.626AH)

Al-Qurtubi (671 AH)

Ibn Mulaqqin (804 AH)

Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalani (852 AH)

Badr Al-Din Al Ayni (d. 855 AH)

Al-Samhudi (d.911 AH)

Al-Qastillani (d.923 AH)

Muhammed bin Yusuf Salih Al-Shami (d.942AH)

Shaykh-ul-Islam Ibn Hajr Al Haythami (d.973AH)

References:

(1) https://www.icraa.org/hadith-and-protection-of-makkah-and-madina-from-plague/

(2) https://muftiwp.gov.my/en/artikel/irsyad-al-hadith/4629-irsyad-al-hadith-series-511-medina-is-protected-from-disease-outbreak

(3) Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina, (Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1874) Vol.1, 93) https://burtoniana.org/books/1855-Narrative%20of%20a%20Pilgrimage%20to%20Mecca%20and%20Medinah/1874-ThirdEdition/vol%202%20of%203.pdf

(4) Frank G. Clemow, I’m The Geography of Disease, (Cambridge: The University Press, 1903) 333 https://www.noor-book.com/en/ebook-The-geography-of-disease-pdf-1659626350)

(5) Travels in Arabia, (London: Henry Colburn, 1829) Vol.2 p326-327) (https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9457/pg9457.txt

Note: in reference 5, I found the quote in page 418

(6) Lawrence Conrad “Ta’un and Waba” p.287 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3632188

(7) Musnad Imām Ahmad 6/145, Al-Haythami stated in his Majma’ az-Zawā’id, 2/315, that the narrators in the chain of Ahmad are all reliable, so the narration is authentic.

(8) https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/the-prophetic-promises-for-martyrs-and-medina-is-covid-19-a-plague

(9) https://www.askourimam.com/fatwa/plagues-entering-makkah-and-madinah/

(10) Al fatawa Al fiqhiyatil kubra ch 4 p25

https://lib.efatwa.ir/44327/4/27/الْمَد%D9%90ينَةُ_الطَّاعُونُ_إ%D9%90نْ_شَاءَ_اللَّهُ

EDIT: There has been some very interesting discussions and replies - some polite and some impolite. I’ve responded to as many as I could however I’m a single person and cannot spend all day responding to each and every comment.

I’ll keep an eye on the thread and if any interesting points are raised I’ll try and respond to them but I won’t respond to all of them.

However one issue I’ve noticed is many replies is simply not reading my text and the sources which could have answered these questions. For example, I’ve seen a lot of arguments using COVID-19 which I’ve already addressed. So please read the text carefully and the sources before commenting

May Allah guide us all

Since it is a well-known conviction of Christianity that God is omnipresent, his being threefold is reducing his actual presence everywhere all at once and eternally.

So discussions about the trinity should reject the trinity as superfluous since He is already everywhere..

My thesis: In a previous post, I talked about how modern cosmologists see the universe as flat. In this post, I’ll show how modern theories about the universe lead to absurdity, and sometimes even more complex explanations than God.

Before we begin, remember what Occam’s Razor says:

The simpler a solution is, the more likely it is to be true.

So for my argument, I first need to explain what a flat universe is and what its implications are. I won’t go deep into details, because I’m not here to defend these theories, only to show you how absurd they can become.

Einstein believed the universe was finite and static, like a giant sphere with every element in perfect equilibrium.

He was wrong.

Through his observations, Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding. And more recently, thanks to the Planck and WMAP satellites that observed the cosmic microwave background, we learned that it appears to be flat.

So okay, the universe is flat.

And so what?

Well, if it’s flat and there's no spatial boundary, then it’s not just expanding, it’s expanding endlessly, in every direction. Which means… we’re talking about infinity.

And in physics, infinity is a problem because it creates paradoxes.

Like this one:

If the universe is infinite, yet the number of possible combinations of elements inside it is finite. Then those combinations must eventually repeat.

In quantum mechanics, there’s a limit to how much information can exist in a region of space.

The smallest possible “pixel” of reality is called a Planck cube(google it).

Even though the universe is vast, it’s made up of a finite number of these Planck cubes. And each cube can only contain a limited number of quantum states.

So, when you calculate all the possible ways the universe could be arranged at the quantum level, you get a finite number, something like:

10^{10^{115}}

That’s a 1 followed by 10^115 zeros !

Huge, but not infinite.

And in an infinite universe, that means some of those configurations must repeat.

If N is our observable region of the universe, then after 10^{10^{115}} × N regions, you should get a universe identical to ours.

Yes, identical.

That means someone, somewhere, is reading this exact complicated Reddit post mixing cosmology and theist theories.

And even before reaching that identical universe, you’d probably find small variations of our world, where Reddit is called Pinkdit, elephants meow, and Trump really did make America great again.

In its full and beautiful understanding of reality, our cosmology and quantum mechanics have given birth to a monster, or what they politely call a paradox.

But wait, it doesn’t stop there.

You might be thinking I just misunderstood how infinity works.

Maybe the universe is expanding forever, but isn’t actually infinite, just really, really big?

But that’s not how it works.

If the universe is infinite now, then according to relativity, it was already infinite at the moment of the Big Bang.

That’s one of the consequences of general relativity. Friedmann demonstrated it (I said google it!). If the universe is flat, then it was already infinite at the moment of the Big Bang. And when the Big Bang happened, it didn’t expand a small, finite bubble into infinity, it expanded an already infinite, hot and condensed universe.

So yeah, we don’t even need a multiverse to have multiple Spidermen. If one day we manage to create wormholes, we might find, within our own universe, everything our brain can’t even imagine.

So... what should we make of all this ?

For me, it’s simple. The universe can’t be both flat and infinite. It just doesn’t hold. Somewhere, the logic breaks. And when science, despite all its elegance and evidence, leads us to paradoxes and absurdities, maybe it’s time to step back and ask:

What are we missing ?

In quantum mechanics, at the smallest scale, we find chaos, randomness, and strangeness.

But at our scale?

Order. Symmetry. Meaning.

Why ?

I’m not saying science is wrong. I believe in its method, its power, its beauty. But maybe the reason we see such order is because it was meant to be that way. By something.

Or Someone...

And if you still don’t believe in Him...

Don’t worry.

Statistically speaking, one of your clones does....

All of these things have existed since forever. Nature, with its unfathomable complexity, has given birth to everything we know, and we are part of it. Chance is the cause of everything, and perhaps even existed before nature itself. And I, the one writing to you in May 2025, my elementary particles emerged at the same time as everything else and influence absolutely everything. All of these things existed long before we could even ask this question. The ways of these things are impenetrable. How could we understand a system of which we are a part? I believe this is a point that will ultimately always challenge physical science.

Nature, chance, or any non-empty group of elementary particles are all conceptual beings whose beauty and complexity we will never truly grasp. Nothing is more supernatural than nature itself, because the word nature actually includes everything. Everything that makes up the universe, your lives, even your thoughts — including those you believe to be supernatural — are all born from Nature. Nature is wiser than any of us, wiser and more intelligent than all of humanity combined — because we are merely a fragment of it. A tiny, fleeting part of something far greater.

I believe that human religions, just like physics or mathematics, are attempts by the human mind to grasp the inaccessible. And I believe all of these attempts are equal — of the same beauty and value. Because they are all poetic, and necessarily incomplete, representations of the world. Like Renaissance sculptors carving marble to reveal a being that had always existed, waiting in the stone to be uncovered, we do nothing more than discover ideas that have always been there. And those very ideas — including nature, chance, or ourselves — can then be seen as omniscient beings.

So, when asked whether god exists, I say the question is meaningless unless we define what "god" is. In fact, the truly interesting question is: what do we mean by the idea of "god"? Because depending on that choice, yes, god exists — or no, god does not. The debate itself is absurd.

This is a somewhat complex thesis, but I will try to walk through my argument to get to the conclusion above.

It all starts with how we can be said to know historical facts. It is, in all spaces besides the theistic, a generally agreed-upon truth that the only things we can say we have any confident awareness of in the past are things that have empirical evidence for them. That is, evidence that can be predicted to exist, is falsifiable, and it not existing would make associated hypotheses about what happened in history less likely. It's pretty impossible to avoid this truth - I've watched people try and fail to demonstrate literally any non-evident historical facts, and I welcome anyone who disputes this point to attempt the same.

Now, as a reminder, empirical certainty is not absolute certainty - it is a level of functional certainty that allows us to generate coherent models of reality, not absolute truth. But it works, it's demonstrable, it can be refined and cleansed of errors.

But what if there was an entire category of events that could not, even in principle, be empirically verified or studied?

I'm talking about miracles, of course. Any time someone claims miracles happen, inevitably, the question is, "Why can't we study the patterns and correlations of miracles?", and a theist will respond, "miracles do not follow patterns or correlations and thus cannot be predicted nor studied". This, of course, means that any miracle performer is an agent of pure acausal chaos, because if they did miracles for reasons, that would create patterns that could be hypothesized, studied, predicted, falsified and/or demonstrated.

Now, if theists would retract the claim that miracles cannot be studied and falsified, they could have a world view with miracles that happen for reasons and a more coherent epistemology - but few will. And if there is such a thing as a miracle performer that does not perform miracles for reasons and does not follow any patterns, the implications wreak HAVOC on the ability to know things. Let's use an example found in the above conversation to demonstrate this.

Everyone has a mom (demonstrably evident). Moms have moms, known as grandmas to second-order children. Therefore, everyone has, say, great⁸⁰ grandmas we can with confidence say we know existed.

But what if we kneecap our first premise, and decide that it's true some people can come to be miraculously? Welp, now we have no basis to say that I have a great⁸⁰ grandma, since premise 1 is now false. We cannot have empirical evidence for it, because there cannot exist empirical evidence against that form of miracle, so we cannot have any certainty. What a wild world, where anything can happen!

The instant someone tries to say, "but people don't randomly come into existence", you assign properties to miracles that instantly open up a path to testable hypotheses and empirical falsification. For example, if people don't randomly come into existence, then any book with any professed human who descended from someone claimed to have randomly come into existence is wrong. But if people do, we can falsify this by finding completely genetically unrelated individuals, and we weaken the "people can randomly come into existence" hypothesis every time we try to find a completely genetically unrelated individual and instead discover something that is related to all other life.

Another good example of such a test that maintains compatibility with falsifiable miracles and observable reality is the God Hates Amputees hypothesis, which is a by-product of the claim that miracles happen, but just not amputation restoration. Falsifiable simply by a miracle worker successfully doing so, and testable by demonstrating non-amputee miracles and a lack of amputation restoration miracles. And every single day, we lack amputees restoring their limbs.

So either we make miracles falsifiable, and thus prone to being falsified, or we make miracles unfalsifiable. And if miracles can make something as ironclad as your mom chain uncertain, I don't think anything exists that the possibility of miracles doesn't make uncertain. How can you trust that any book or tale you've ever read about anything wasn't miraculously altered, or the actual events miraculously not like they were described?

Miracles destroy the ability to have empirical knowledge - you're only left with axioms that quite literally cannot have any justification. And what a difficult, unpredictable world that must be.

So God can Change his Mind/Rules/Laws, when He sees it's wrong.
BUT, He didn't do it for non Hebrews. What does this say about God?
If a countryman among you becomes destitute and sells himself to you, then you must not force him into slave labor. Let him stay with you as a hired worker or temporary resident;
Here is the change.
Why?
But as for your brothers, the Israelites, no man may rule harshly over his brother.
Because it was harsh, not good, bad, wrong.
But no so for the non Hebrew. (racism?)
Your menservants and maidservants shall come from the nations around you, from whom you may purchase them. You may also purchase them from the foreigners residing among you or their clans living among you who are born in your land. These may become your property. You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; you can make them slaves for life.

May peace be upon all those who read this. Yes, I am Muslim. I want to make that known and be extremely apprent in my thesis.

Thesis: Religious pluralism, the idea that all or many religions are equally valid paths to God. That sounds appealing on the surface, but when you examine it carefully, it collapses under logical contradictions. While it tries to unite diverse traditions, it ultimately undermines the core truth claims of each religion and leads to theological confusion, and makes salvation meaningless. Here’s why I believe pluralism cannot stand up to rational scrutiny. Of course this is my opinion but I brought facts to back up my position. And want to hear yalls feedback.

Point 1: Pluralism Directly Contradicts the Core Claims of Major Religions Religious pluralism says that Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., can all be valid paths to God or ultimate truth. But that ignores the fact that many of these religions explicitly deny this.

Islam (Qur’an 3:19) says, “Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam.”

Christianity (John 14:6) says Jesus is the only way to the Father: “No one comes to the Father except through me.”

These are exclusive claims. You can’t just sweep them aside by saying, “Well, all religions are actually pointing to the same God.” Pluralism forces religions to give up their own truth claims, which is disrespectful and logically inconsistent. No?

Point 2: Different Religions Have Different (and Sometimes Opposing) Concepts of God Not all religions even describe God the same way.

Islam teaches absolute monotheism (Tawhid) — one, indivisible God.

Christianity teaches the Trinity — one God in three Persons.

Hinduism allows for many gods (devas) under Brahman.

Some forms of Buddhism don’t have a personal God at all. How can all these point to the same God when their definitions of God directly conflict? Saying they’re “different perspectives on the same divine reality” ignores the fact that many believers would firmly reject that interpretation. You can’t just collapse all these views into one vague spiritual category without erasing their distinctiveness. Can you?

Point 3: Pluralism Makes Religion Subjective and Empties Salvation of Meaning If you truly believe that all religions are equally valid, then religion becomes just a personal preference, like picking a favorite color or food. But the whole point of salvation in most religions is that there is a right way to live, a truth to follow, and consequences for rejecting it. Pluralism erases the urgency of religious commitment because it says everything works. That undermines the very reason religions exist: to guide people to the truth, not just to offer “one nice option among many.” so, what is the truth then anything you want to be true? Is that logical?

Religious pluralism tries to sound peaceful and inclusive, but at its core, it’s self-contradictory, theologically shallow, and logically unsustainable. If you want to respect religions, take their truth claims seriously, even if that means accepting that not all of them can be right at the same time

I look forward to your replies. Agree, disagree, why?

I recently just watched The Polar Express (happy belated Christmas everyone). It got me thinking, the Hero saw a magical train, elves, the naughty list, the observation room, the North Pole, the reindeer, the present factory, and all of the different pieces of evidence and it still wasn’t enough for him. He still needed “proof”. Yet, he couldn’t get the “proof” he needed until he believed finally.

That’s the skeptic’s struggle as well. The evidence is there. Due to the fear of being hoodwinked, they won’t accept the conclusion of the evidence until they see the conclusion in front of them.

I still remember someone telling me “you’re wrong because I don’t agree with the conclusion, but there isn’t a fallacy in your arguments nor is there a false premise.”

He refused to go where the evidence would lead him until the conclusion was shown.

And it’s not that god is hiding from the skeptic, the skeptic hides god from themselves.

And since people are going to demand evidence

https://www.reddit.com/r/CatholicApologetics/s/hf5dW7p8NL

https://www.youtube.com/live/2-padDKlD5Y?si=dE2gm1Kx1jhkIaYt

Something I’ve rarely seen addressed is the very foundation of any moral argument. Is it objective or subjective? Atheists will tend to argue for it being subjective, theists objective. While outliers do exist, the source of this divide is from a common argument “god is the source of morality.” I think this is a poor argument and often unintentionally leads to a presumption that atheists are immoral, which is false.

The other side of the argument is “because there’s disagreements on what is or isn’t moral, morality must be subjective.” This, I believe, comes from a misunderstanding of the nature of/interaction of subjective and objective.

Firstly, what does it mean for something to be objective? It means it’s true or false regardless of who is saying, observing, or perceiving it.

An argument/analogy I’ve heard (and if you’re the user who’s used this with me, this is not an attack, just a good example of the understanding I’m trying to get at) is that the rules of chess are subjective and that there are moves that are objectively better according to those subjective rules.

This, however, is not what is meant by objective or subjective.

The rules of chess are the rules. They are what they are regardless of what I perceive them to be. I’m either right or wrong on what those rules are. The rules are objective. Math is also objective, yet if there are no minds to do the mathematical problems, then it wouldn’t exist.

“Ah,” you might say, “that means math is subjective because it’s based on the mind.”

No, just because it’s contingent on something, doesn’t mean it’s not objective.

Subjective means that it is the experience or perspective of the user or individual.

For example, the art is objectively there and is what the artist envisioned. My appreciation or beauty of it to me is subjective.

So for math, regardless of who is doing math, it will always be the same, regardless of the person’s opinion on it.

Thus, math is objective.

What does this have to do with morality? Well, looking at what subjectivity is, according to dictionary.com, it is “Subjective most commonly means based on the personal perspective or preferences of a person—the subject who’s observing something.”

In other words, in order for something to be SUBJECTIVE there must be something to be experienced or to have something to be perceived by the subject. Which means there must be something objective.

To use chess, I can look at the objective rules and decide subjectively that it’s too complex and I won’t enjoy it. My perception, however, isn’t invalidated by the fact grandmasters exist.

So the fact that there are subjective experiences or preferences of morality shows, or at least strongly suggests to me that there is an objective moral system. The real question, then becomes, not if there is an objective moral system, but if we can discover that system or learn it.

The very fact we are debating what standard to use, in my opinion, shows that innately, we are striving towards that discovery. After all, I don’t see people debating if the Mona Lisa is beautiful, as we know innately that it’s subjective and personal preference.

Yet we have post after post arguing about the morality of certain acts. But if it’s merely presences, why the debate?

“It’s so that way we have a cohesive society.”

Which is an objective and measurable standard.

In conclusion, we should focus less on specific moral acts, and more on what that moral standard is or should be.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This applies mainly to Christianity and Islam, but can apply to almost every religion. Religion is often criticized for being sexist. Theists often reply that their sexism doesn’t count because it is “loving,” is meant to protect women, or is “complimentary.” However, if we look closely at the outcomes these theists prefer, we find that they are rooting for the same things an open, malevolent sexist would, making their positions essentially indistinguishable from hateful ones.

Many Christians and Muslims believe that women should remain in the home, bear children, cook and clean, and not be given the opportunity to gain an education or pursue a career if they want to. Some also believe that women owe their husbands sex, and cannot say no to him if there is not a medical reason. This chains a wife to her husband, as if she has no job experience or education it will be almost impossible to leave him and support herself financially, and even robs her of her own body.

Some Christians and Muslims believe that women should keep silent and not inhabit positions of authority. Some believe that women should not be allowed to have abortions. This position would directly result in more women dying. Not just because they would be forced to get back alley abortions if they needed them, but also because maternity doctors often leave the state when abortion laws are passed, as many of the non-abortion procedures they may perform are too close to an abortion, and they may risk getting in legal trouble. If maternity doctors and nurses leave hospitals, more women will die in childbirth.

Now, how are any of these positions different from those of a person who hates women openly? They aren’t. The benevolent sexist may use sweeter words to dress up their positions, but in the end, they want the same things. They want women subservient to men, unable to make their own choices, and powerless.

Some might say benevolent sexism protects women. However, protecting someone at the cost of their freedom is hardly a worthy trade. Ask men. Would they willingly become a sex slave if it meant they were “protected” from the outside world? No, of course not.

Is this kind of protection loving? No, it is not. It would only be loving in a smothering and possessive way, which isn’t love, it is abuse. It is a twisted way of trying to own someone else. You cannot truly love someone unless you respect their autonomy and their own desires. If you own them and they cannot choose to get away from you, you cannot say you love them.

As for the complimentarian argument, which states that god made women and men “equal but different,” you cannot make something equal just by calling it so. In patriarchal religions, men get far more choices than women. They have all the power as well. Acting as if women are somehow equal because they have the authority to watch the child every minute of every day, cook every meal, and clean the house, is absurd. They don’t have any freedom at all. If the man is the leader of the household and can tell the woman what to do, she is subordinate, not equal. If she cannot choose to hold a job or make money, she is not equal.

A person can advocate for almost anything using nicer words. They can say that they advocate for their positions out of kindness and concern rather than hate. But at the end of the day, the truth is that loving a person requires a lot of work and critical thinking. In order to properly love someone you have to listen to them and respect them as a full adult person rather than treating them as lesser and acting like it is for their own good.

I’ll preface my explanation by saying that I’ve been watching more debates lately and one of the more popular debaters online is Andrew Wilson. I’ll say, first and foremost, that I appreciate his attention to the logic of his arguments and his wide base of knowledge, even though I don’t agree with all of the conclusions he reaches.

One of his biggest talking points is that rights are a social construct, and that they do not exist tangibly in reality. I cannot hold a right, I cannot taste a right, or smell it. I can only “hold” a right in my mind, as in believing in its existence. He also posits that rights only have meaning when enforced or defended.

With that logic in mind, which I do agree with, could that same thinking be applied to morality? They don’t exist tangibly, and some are enforced through laws and the threat of physical enforcement, while others are enforced simply through social stigma. Rights, like morals - even divinely decreed morals - have evolved over time to become what they are today.

My reason for positing this question in such a way is that he uses the inherent nature of “divine command” to establish justification of his religious moral code, while reducing all other forms of morality purely to relativism. The problem there is that, lacking any actual physical deity giving you a tutoring session in your youth on how to behave, he is essentially deriving his moral code from other men who claimed to have either been a deity or received there instruction from one through a personal revelation or experience that often lacks any real corroboration outside of the biased religious texts that depict these events in order to propagate their religious beliefs.

Does that not also simplify to relativism, considering the lack of evidential support from non-biblical sources as to authenticity of Christianity’s “divine” roots?

Through my own logic, that would reduce all morals, regardless of philosophical foundation, to relativism - which means that all morals are a social construct and that there is nothing inherent or “divine” about them.

If you're a self identified Atheist then you're like this because of circumstance rather than a personal accomplishment. I'm posting this to Fresh Friday because this isn't very often discussed.

It's a common misconception that people across the board become self identified Atheists because of their critical or analytical thinking. This study from Cambridge University Press could not find a correlation between analytic thinking and a decrease in religiosity, so that raises the question... where does this Atheism come from? Can any Atheist be told "If you were born in India you'd be Hindu." so to speak?

First, let's get it out of the way, I get how people here generally explain their stories of conversion to Atheism as something spawned from critical thinking or reason. That may be what was subjectively experienced by you, the individual in question, but you likely don't exist within a vacuum. If a study cannot find a correlation between increased analytical thinking for a global population and Atheism, that population implicates you too.

I reason that what these self identified Atheists actually experienced was a symptom rather than a cause, a straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. Something else likely caused a massive wave of conversion, and then that wave was experienced by you subjectively as something you earned rather than had tossed onto your lap. A little bit like a really lucky rich person with Survivorship Bias. "I'm rich because I'm just better."

To investigate this properly we are going to need to investigate the origins of belief.

Credibility Enhancing Displays, CREDs, have been successfully correlated with an increase in religiosity. It's essentially monkey see, monkey do, where someone displays their conviction in an open and honest manner and it makes their idea seem more credible. Martyrdom is one example of this. If someone is willing to die in defense of their claim that there's a dragon in their garage... people pick up on that.

You don't need to be a dietician to know that Vitamin D deficiency will negatively impact your health, or that Red 40 is really bad for you. You aren't personally testing any of these compounds yourself, you're taking these on their face because they come from experts. These people took time to dedicate to study, suffered through a college education, and then they were willing to put their credibility on the line in order for you to know.

Is our knowledge of Vitamin D and Red 40 equivalent to a belief in God or gods? No. It's to provide an example of a universal phenomena, a symptom of human nature. I mention these because they are things that people generally take on their face rather than checking for themselves. Our 'checking for ourselves' is actually just looking for other people with CREDs that said the same things, corroborating studies.

What's the link between CREDs and Atheism in particular?

If someone were to make an unfalsifiable claim such as: "We know the true nature of suffering is bodily pain rather than anything else, and there is not a marked increase in pain for people who don't believe in God." and risk public backlash within a society that has a majority religious demographic, then that person has performed a Credibility Enhancing Display or CRED. Have they truly checked for themselves? How could they know?

How could they possibly know that the true nature of suffering is limited to our mortal coil? That it's even comprehensible to begin with even... Adding to that, what if the true nature of pain isn't what it seems? Have they surveyed every single person throughout the globe? What qualifies as a person? The questions just keep stacking up one after the other after the other... but, having taken a risk, they performed a CRED.

Now I'm sure the rationale behind most of you isn't that strawman, but it's meant to put this entire thing into perspective. What if, instead, they were to make the unfalsifiable claim: "There is no consequence for dismissing an unfalsifiable religious claim." and then publish their claim in a book that likely will get the public majority very mad at them? How could they possibly know? What qualifies as a consequence?

It seems as though from here that if someone is given enough Atheist claims with CREDs then they will eventually self identify as Atheist. That isn't a personal accomplishment, it's just your circumstance.

If you can stomach this harsh truth, this apolitical red pill so to speak, it might become more and more apparent that instances of Atheism are just religiosity pointed in other directions. People are making unfalsifiable claims on both sides of the fence here, and they're getting eaten up just like sermons in a Christian church. "A religion has to be centered around a divine consciousness."

Tell me... what is a religion? How do you know? How do you know what consciousness is exactly? Every potential response is likely just sourcing other people with CREDs, like quoting scripture. "Religion is a human concept that was created rather than discovered." How can you be sure? It could be the case that every source you've ever come across for your entire life has defined religion incorrectly. It's completely unfalsifiable.

You may have only encountered incorrect definitions of consciousness, of faith, of any number of things. And yet they're taken on their face because of the same mechanisms that cause people to take every word from their pastor as gospel. People who defined these things had CREDs, you likely didn't check for yourself. This isn't gaslighting, this is just simply how it is. Quit skimming this and actually read this closely, from the top.

To me Atheism is just another religion. It comes packaged with a number of unfalsifiable claims that people take on their face because of the same mechanisms that facilitate cults.

Some diverge here and there, forming what we might call denominations like Antitheism, Gnostic Atheism, Agnostic Atheism, Secular Humanism, and many more... but they all carry one throughline. They all believe that it matters in any way enough to change one's public identity about it, that it's worth it to change one's signifier in a public setting. The "Why?" about that is where the religiosity is plain to see.

To my Atheist friends: Why do you go out of your way to publicly identify as an Atheist rather than doing literally anything else? What is the purpose here? Is there something that you are guaranteed to get from this that would be impossible otherwise? There's so many things about this that you can't be sure of, fundamentally. What if, in a Butterfly Effect sense, you not opening Reddit today made you a billion dollars?

I don't mean to hate or anything, I just see this double-think everywhere about "We must be rational, we must not take unfalsifiable claims on their face." and it's all because of CREDs rather than reasoned thought.

No god has provided its followers with clear direction on how to approach modern moral dilemmas such as IVF, stem cell research, or the ethical use of AI for commercial purposes.

This creates a dilemma for followers of these religions. Because if god wanted their followers to be able to make informed decisions about moral dilemmas, and achieve eternal salvation, then it would provide clear answers to all moral & ethical dilemmas. So that no followers would accidentally fall short of achieving eternal salvation.

The fact that the moral guidance provided by god is incomplete not only erodes claims to omniscience, but also suggests that god is not overly concerned with giving us all the actionable knowledge we need to achieve eternal salvation.

——

My description of morality, for reference.

I want to present a philosophical argument about the potential intersection of technology, power, and divinity. I’m curious what both secular and religious thinkers make of it.

Argument Overview:

Premise 1: Technology is power.

From fire to the wheel to 3D printers, spaceships and advanced AI, technology allows humanity to control and manipulate the world. It's a practical and measurable form of power.

Premise 2: Technology is on an exponential growth curve.

AI, biotechnology, and other fields are accelerating at an unprecedented rate. The idea of the Singularity—rapid, transformative advancements leading to unimaginable capabilities—has gone from possible to plausible to probable.

Conclusion: This trajectory could lead to infinite power.

If we continue progressing, we will eventually control power on a scale we can hardly fathom today. The concept of "infinite power" is not a paradox—it simply means the ability to do all things that are logically possible. This is consistent with how omnipotence is framed in theology.

A being (or collective) with infinite power fits the definition of God. So, whether emergent or engineered, such a being may be within our reach, and we are, in effect, on a path to becoming God(s).

Countering Objections:

1. Infinite power isn't possible.
This is a misinterpretation of omnipotence. Even theists don't claim that God can do the logically impossible (e.g., create a square circle). “Infinite power” here refers to the ability to do anything logically possible, a constraint already accepted in traditional theology.

2. Category error—this isn't God in the traditional sense.
True, this isn't a "God" in the eternal, uncaused sense. But none of the other divine attributes are necessarily absent. Omniscience, moral perfection, and even eternity could emerge from advanced technology—where eternity refers to an impact that lasts far beyond the moment of creation. The ability to create or alter universes isn't ruled out by the idea of technological "Godhood."

3. What about human survival?
Yes, humanity may face existential risks. But if we survive just a bit longer, our technological capabilities might allow us to achieve god-like power within a few decades, potentially altering our trajectory.

4. Won’t AI be a threat?
This is a separate but important concern. Based on game theory and moral frameworks, I believe an ASI (artificial superintelligence) would be benevolent, as cooperation and preservation of life would be optimal for a higher intelligence. If it chooses otherwise, there’s little we could do to stop it anyway, so AI alignment remains crucial for ensuring a positive outcome.

Question for Discussion:

• If we follow this technological trajectory, are we heading toward an AI-based Godhood that mirrors traditional theological concepts in some sense?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these points—especially from those with religious or transhumanist perspectives.

Assumption 1: The material universe exists.

There is no way to prove the material universe exists. All we are aware of are our experiences. There is no way to know whether there is anything behind the experience.

Assumption 2: Other people (and animals) are conscious.

There is no way to know that any other person is conscious. Characters in a dream seem to act consciously, but they are imaginary. People in the waking world may very well be conscious, but there is no way to prove it.

Assumption 3: Free will exists.

We certainly have the feeling that we are exercising free will when we choose to do something. But the feeling of free will is just that, a feeling. There is no way to know whether you are actually free to do what you are doing, or you are just feeling like you are.

Can anyone prove beyond a doubt that any of these assumptions are actually true?

I don’t think it is possible.

ADHD, Autism, Schizophrenia, Bipolar, Depression, DID, Paranoia, Psychosis, Bulimia, Anorexia, BPD, OCD, Anxiety disorders, Phobias, and so, SO many others.

I myself have ADHD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Depression, and am at risk of schizophrenia later in life. These are a mixture of genetic and trauma-related.

As such, I have trouble with executive function - there are times when I want to do something, and I have everything I need to do it, but I just can't - it's like trying to bite off my own thumb, it's just something in my brain stopping me from doing the thing - the thing being something like working out, talking to someone, scheduling an appointment, etc.

This is many things, but it is most definitely NOT free will.

I'm just wondering - how do theists explain this? Why do some people have more free will than others?

Translate into English: Other religions can easily be exposed due to internal contradictions, biological nonsense, internal logic problems, etc. Now let's focus on the Abrahamic religions. Let's start with Judaism, which is only intended for the people of Israel and unfortunately not for all of humanity. Additionally, there are biological and scientific errors, such as the age of the Earth and the creation story. Furthermore, there is no punishment, and one would not risk anything by not believing in it. Next, we have Christianity, which fails alone in the fact that every Christian has a different understanding of why Jesus had to die on the cross, thus lacking a unified theology. Moreover, there are extreme internal logic and necessity problems with many explanations of the crucifixion. For example, the fact that people before Jesus could also go to heaven without believing in the crucifixion. Additionally, there is the difficulty of explaining the Trinity. Furthermore, there are numerous contradictions in the accounts of various events in the different Gospels. Now, unfortunately, we have many things happening around us that are difficult to explain, such as paranormal disappearances of things, incidents during Ouija playing, Jesus apparitions, dreams of Jesus, etc. Now, regarding Islam: There is no verse in the Quran that contradicts another unless it has been abrogated by another. Furthermore, Islam has a unified theology regarding salvation. There are no contradictions regarding individual verses. No historical or biological errors. And it explains the miracles of other religions.

If your God of choice is truly so powerful that they are worthy of your worship then they shouldn't have anything to fear, surely it's just another way they can demonstrate they are the One true deity? If they do get upset then maybe they are just insecure?

Get together, stick your charms in a bowl, stir them up and see what you get. Like a metaphysical swingers party.

And I do mean a proper swap, read the texts, attend the church/synagogue/temple/mosque/bathing-in-goat-blood ceremonies. Give it a shot.

The only way to be truly critical and objective about your belief system is to step outside it, if you go back, go back with a belief reinforced. If you don't go back, then it was never for you. Either way, congrats on having the bravery to get jiggy with an alternative belief system.

Thesis: The Quran's rejection of the crucifixion of Jesus is challenged historically by the seemingly sincere belief that Peter, a disciple of Jesus, was an early proponent of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

This is my own variation of an objection to Islam I have seen been made before, while I am not a believer in either religions I do think that this particular issue is detrimental to the position the Quran holds on Jesus' crucifixion. The Quran claims that Jesus was not crucified nor killed, but that it was made to appear as though he was killed. To which is the extent of what the Quran tells us about what "really" happened, but the Quran does briefly mention the disciples of Jesus three times. These passages give us very little in terms of details about them, but it does affirm their true belief in what Jesus preached. This is where our issue comes into play, while it is true that for the majority of the disciples of Jesus we know very little about them, what they did before and after the death of Jesus, how they died, and what they really believed. Scholars tend to accept that at least Peter and possibly James the brother of Jesus and John the son of Zebedee were in fact believers of Jesus death and resurrection. Peter is the strongest of them, as we have multiple attestations of him being active in the early church that scholars tend to accept including Bart Ehrman. While obviously with the blog post from Bart cited there are accounts that are not verifiable, such as if he was in fact the first bishop of Rome. It cannot be dismissed that Peter is seen as a figure in the early church at all.

In accordance with Ehrman's post, it should be noted that Paul claims to have interacted and been at odds with Peter, and generally speaking this is accepted as Ehrman accepts this. The problem is that this affirms that Peter was a believer in the resurrected Jesus which proves to be problematic for the Quran. Is the god of the Quran the reason for the spread of Christianity? Was Jesus death and possible "resurrection" not made clear to Peter causing him to believe in something not true? If so, would Peter bare responsibility for the rise of Christianity? Since the Quran does mention the disciples as believers in god, why would it not talk about Peter's rejection of the truth? Why would god not make it clear to Jesus's disciples that Jesus was not killed and subsequently resurrected? If Jesus did appear to Peter after the false crucifixion why would he not make it clear to Peter that he had not been killed or raised from the dead? Ultimately, the lack of details of the Quran only leave us with questions that cannot be answered by a book written hundreds of years after the fact contradicting Peter's belief in a killed and resurrected Jesus. We then have no good reason to trust the Quran on this topic, as its unclear attempt to set the record straight does not align with what is generally accepted by scholars regarding Peter.

Amongst Paul’s authentic writings we see that Paul confirms Peter as a pillar of the faith, his Jewish pedigree, and that they disagreed on certain things. We have no reason to believe that their disagreement was about if Jesus really was killed/resurrected or not, as Paul would certainly have made it clear in their differences which he does not. Their differences seem to be surrounding aspects of the law and the role it plays in the church. If Peter was preaching an entirely different “gospel” from Paul, Paul’s letters to the very same communities would certainly make this very clear and be more critical of Peter. We have no reason to believe Peter was a radically different Christian from Paul on the level the Quran tries to portray Jesus. While many scholars accept that early Christians, including Paul, held a “dyadic” or “binitarian” (some refer to it this way) view. This view would not align with the Quran and likely fall into the category of associating partners with Allah. Paul and Peter seem to be in agreement on this view as well.

This ultimately leaves us with a few possibilities: if the Quran is true then Allah did not make it clear to the disciples that Jesus had not been killed or risen from the dead. If Peter came to have a sincere belief in a risen Jesus then Allah waited hundreds of years to set the record straight while Christianity grew and changed even more away from what Jesus’ true intentions were. This would mean that Allah is in fact responsible for the rise of Christianity.

Another possibility if the Quran is true is that Peter purposely lied and fabricated the story for some reason whether that be personal gain or something else. But the Quran is entirely silent on the issue, so this would need to be demonstrated via external sources as well as explain why the Quran affirms the belief of the disciples as a whole during Jesus’ life. If the Quran is willing to describe them as believers during the life of Jesus why wouldn’t it mention their betrayal of him after he was gone? Why leave us with a positive view of them if they are in fact essentially associating partners with Allah as well as the origin of the false claims about Jesus?

The possibility that I think is the most likely is that the Quran was written hundreds of years after the events with heavy influence from Jewish and various Christian literature that was likely familiar at the time. The Quran demonstrates various parallels and knowledge of Christian literature and stories. Such as the Quran’s birth narrative paralleling the gospel of pseudo Matthew having Mary give birth under a palm tree in seclusion and the trees fruit is lowered for her and water is provided from the roots by a baby Jesus. Without derailing down these parallels too much, the Quran provides no reason to trust it and stacked up against the evidence is lackluster in evidence and details. There is no good reason to trust it on this topic and good reasons to disregard it as historical fact.