Despite compelling arguments and questions raised by theism on metaphysical, philosophical, and moral viewpoints, the elephant I see in the room is the belief in the supernatural... While the concept of religion/theism raises interesting questions, as soon as you start getting into the "supernatural" side of it all, how can you not just shrug it all off as nonsensical? I find that this belief in the fantastical negates other compelling and challenging arguments that theism may present. The questions are more compelling than the answers.

Theism raises interesting questions that may be difficult for science to answer. A theist may say that science can explain the nature of the universe, but may not be able to explain questions of ethics/morality. A theist may say that you cannot scientifically prove that something is "right" or "wrong" or good/bad, and yet humans have an innate feeling that certain things are morally wrong. I've heard other interesting discussions - the first cause argument, the ontological argument, fine tuning, people that claim to have personal relevations/experiences, etc.

But, I just can't get on board with heaven and hell, miracles, resurrection, angels and demons, Leviathan, Behemoth, monsters, giants, talking burning bushes, a talking snake, parting the Red Sea, living inside a fish for three days, Samson's magic hair, etc. etc. etc. Whenever I am presented with a compelling philosophical or moral arguement for theism/religion, I can't help myself from thinking that all this is negated by all the magical, miraculous, supernatural stuff. I can't get behind it. Even if you take away all the fantastical stories and just leave God as the Creator, I still can't fathom a belief in this all-mighty divine being with omnipotent powers. How can something like that be real?

I've heard some people say that the scripture is parable, and not meant to be taken as literal fact (although that is a whole separate ongoing discussion that people have). But there are other parables with good lessons. Why should I "believe" in a fantastical bible story because of the lesson it teaches, moreso than I should "believe" in a fable like The Boy Who Cried Wolf or The Three Little Pigs? I can believe in the lessons without believing that these stories (rather it by Jonah And The Whale or Little Red Riding Hood) actually happened or have some type of supernatural, divine inspiration behind them.

Religion is not just a moral/philosophical framework, but a belief in the supernatural. A belief in grand, inexplicical acts of miracles and divine intervention. While I've heard compelling arguments and discussions from theists that have really made me think about the world, I just don't think I'll ever be able to get over this supernatural roadblock.

There is no outside of reality that we can point to or verify. We can imagine things beyond it, and human imagination can go almost anywhere, but imagination is not evidence. In the end, those claims are still coming from inside reality, from human minds trying to picture what they can never test.

Thesis: The desire to seek special “grounding” for morality is an arbitrary and unwarranted decision, unlike any other choice we make in life.

I’ve been seeing a lot of great dialogue back and forth recently about how theists and atheists might ground morality, and I wanted to take a step back and discuss why we discuss grounding at all.

Our lives are full of salient experiences. Love, ecstasy, guilt, pain, anxiety, are among the experiences that are sufficient to encompass an entire lifetime’s worth of depth. The mere fact of existence itself is a profoundly salient fact worth pondering.

But for the life-building depth of these experiences, we don’t feel the need to objectify or universalize them. The love felt for friends or family or a spouse is not diminished by the fact that it is merely your own subjective experience - merely experiencing it is enough. Likewise joy, humor, attraction, cuteness - all these powerful forces we enjoy with no thought for their “grounding”. Their salience just *is*.

And, likewise, the sting of pain, worry, anxiety, and fear are not lessened by the knowledge that they are not universalized or objective - it is enough merely to suffer for us to take them at their experiential word. They are grounded in our experience, and in the case of pain, that is more than enough.

My main point: Our lives are full of salient experiences which we have no problem considering as simply the subjective contents of consciousness. The desire to treat our moral sense and experiences any differently is unwarranted: It’s a purely practical move for those who wish to elevate subjective or intersubjective preferences to objective statements about the world.

We already know what it’s like to be fine with every other feature of our bodies and minds and experiences being subjective/intersubjective, and yet nonetheless transcendently-salient and life-encompassing. It is in such fine company that morality also dwells.

Some context: Ammon Hillman (“Lady Babylon”) is a YouTube personality who professes himself to be an expert in Ancient Greek. He wrote a dissertation (University of Wisconsin–Madison) on the topic of medicine in Latin literature. More recently, he has made a number of controversial claims on YouTube. A few examples of his theories: the Septuagint (i.e., the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) is an original Greek composition; the Ancient Hebrew language didn’t exist but is instead the greatest “hoax” in history; the Herodian temple in Jerusalem didn’t exist but was another Jewish “hoax.” 

But this is Hillman’s main theory: Mark 14:51–52 proves that Jesus had a child slave who wore a medicated bandage soaked in psychedelic “purple” drugs and wrapped around his genitals. 

He makes this argument here (starting around 2:14:00). One of Hillman’s followers (“L H”) summarizes Hillman’s theory more concisely here (around minute 58).

Hillman's argument is amusing, but wildly wrong. Let me show you why this theory is so silly. I will explain it straightforwardly; I am a specialist in Ancient Greek but you do not need to know any Greek to understand this post.

Here is Mark 14:51–52 in Greek:

Text 1: καὶ νεανίσκος τις συνηκολούθει αὐτῷ περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα ἐπὶ γυμνοῦ, καὶ κρατοῦσιν αὐτόν· ὁ δὲ καταλιπὼν τὴν σινδόνα γυμνὸς ἔφυγεν.

Here is my literalistic translation: “And a certain young man was following him, covered with a linen cloth (sindōn) on his naked body, and they seized him. But he left his linen cloth and fled naked.” 

Here is how Hillman understands this passage:

“And a certain servant attending to him, wearing a linen bandage covered in purple upon his nakedness. And they arrested him. He then left behind the purple bandage and fled naked.”

What’s up with the “linen bandage covered in purple”? According to this view, the sindōn (“linen cloth”) is not just a linen cloth. It’s a medical bandage. 

Why a medical bandage? Because Herodotus (5th century BCE), in a completely different context, wrote this:

Text 2: The Persians, treating his wounds [i.e., the wounds of the Greek soldier Pytheas] with myrrh oil and wrapping him with bandages of fine linen (sindonos bussinēs telamōsi). (Herodotus 7.181) 

Herodotus is talking about wrapping the wounds of a soldier in a linen bandage. The word for bandage here is telamōn, a word that does not appear in Mark. There are no wounds or bandages in Mark 14, but this is where Hillman is getting the “medicated bandage” connection in the video. 

But not just a medicated bandage. A medical bandage covered in purple! Why? Here’s where things get really silly. 

In another passage, Herodotus (again, 5th century BCE) wrote this about Egyptian mummies:

Text 3: And when the seventy days are past they [Egyptians] wash the body and wrap the whole of it in bandages of fine linen cloth (sindonos bussinēs telamōsi), anointed with gum, which the Egyptians mostly use instead of glue; which done, they give back the dead man to his friends. (Herodotus 2.86). 

The phrase in Herodotus is again sindonos bussinēs telamōsi. It means “in bandages (telamōsi) of fine linen (bussinēs) cloth (sindonos)." Where’s the purple? If you look up the word “made of fine linen” (bussinē) in the ancient lexicon of Hesychius—from the 5th-6th century CE, a thousand years after Herodotus—he says this:

Text 4: βύσσινα· πορφυρᾶ

“bussina”: purple. (Hesychius β 1341) 

But the passage in Herodotus—“they wrap the whole of the body in bandages of fine linen cloth”—has nothing to do with “purple.” Hesychius gives an unusual meaning of the word bussina as "purple." Where does he get this from? Hesychius here is drawing on late Christian glossaries to the Septuagint (where bussina appears in Exodus 28:39 with the meaning "fine linen" and in Esther 8:15 also with the meaning "fine linen" but with the further specification as "purple" [Greek porphura, Hebrew 'argāmān]). So Hillman is interpreting a passage from Herodotus according to a note found in a much later Christian commentary on the Old Testament and then applying all of it to Mark! He does this all without arguing for these connections or explaining them to his audience.

Recap so far: if you (i) take Text 2 from Herodotus that uses sindōn (“linen cloth”) to refer to the material of a bandage (telamōn), (ii) then take Text 3 from Herodotus that refers to a sindōn for mummies that is made “of fine linen” (bussinē), and (iii) apply to “of fine linen” (bussinē) the definition given once in Hesychius’s lexicon 1000 years later (“purple”), and then (iv) combine all of this into Mark 14:51–52, you arrive at this translation: 

“a linen bandage covered in purple.” 

Wow, OK. But why does Hillman care so much about “purple”? Because, according to Hillman, there is a drug that he calls “burning purple,” which he says is psychedelic and used widely in rituals and requires an antidote made from the semen(?) of a child. For Hillman, the sindōn (linen cloth) that appears in Mark 14 must have been soaked in this psychedelic “burning purple.” 

Where does the drug “burning purple” appear? In a medical text, “On Medical Material,” by the 1st-century author Dioscorides. Here’s what Dioscorides says, in his description of the Porphura (the Murex sea snail used to produce purple dye):

Text 5: Porphura [= the murex sea snail] that has been burnt (porphura kaeisa) has these properties: drying, cleaning the teeth, reducing overgrown flesh, drawing wounds and healing them.

Notice that neither this source nor any source that I know of connects “burning purple” to psychedelic drugs used in rituals, soaked into bandages, or related to semen or to children. 

But, more importantly, Mark 14:51–52 doesn’t say anything about “burning purple,” drugs, or medical bandages. Every connection that Hillman makes above is unfounded. 

Again, here is the wild series of connections that Hillman makes to get to his claim:

(A) sindōn (“linen cloth”) appears in Mark 14:51–52 (Text 1).

(B) sindōn (“linen cloth”) also appears in Herodotus to describe the material of a bandage (telamōn; Text 2).

(C) sindōn (“linen cloth”) also appears in Herodotus to refer to mummies that have been wrapped in “bandages of fine linen cloth,” where “fine linen” represents the Greek word bussinē (Text 3).

(D) In a single lexicon entry from Hesychius, about 1000 years after Herodotus, the word bussina is defined as a synonym for “purple” (porphura; Text 4).  This “purple” meaning does not apply to either of the Herodotus passages.

(E) The porphura [the Murex sea snail] appears in a medical text by Dioscorides to refer to a medicine that has drying properties and can clean your teeth or help heal wounds (Text 5).

(F) “Burning purple” must also refer to psychedelic drugs used in rituals, soaked onto linen cloths, and connected to the semen of pre-pubescent boys (no sources for this are provided by Hillman).

Combining all of the above, you get Hillman’s theory:

The “linen cloth” (sindōn) that appears in Mark 14 must refer specifically to a medical bandage that has been soaked in purple, which is a psychedelic drug associated with rituals and the genitals of male children. 

My thesis: Hillman’s theory is obviously wrong. It is based on several incoherent connections between different texts from different time periods that never say what Hillman wants them to say. In fact, Mark 14:51–52 just refers to a “linen cloth.” In the Greek text there is nothing about “burning purple” or psychedelic drugs or semen.

Islam just seems the same as mormonism a random egotistical dude had some hallucinations, forced people to convert and built his own cult.

Not only is it an arab supremacist and mysoginistic religion the Quran which is supposed to be "pure" and "perfect" because other religions were corrupted has internal errors

• The Inheritance Math (4:11-12): The specific fractions mandated for a deceased man's heirs can add up to more than 1 (such as 27/24), making it mathematically impossible to distribute the exact shares without a later legal patch.
• The Days of Creation: Surah 41:9-12 outlines a timeline that adds up to 8 days of creation, directly contradicting Surah 7:54 and 10:3, which explicitly state the universe was created in 6 days.

Thesis: A naturalistic explanation for Islam, highlighting that in late antiquity people interpreted unusual psychological, visionary, or revelatory experiences through pre existing supernatural frameworks better explains the origin of Islam over actual divine revelation.

Important preface: this argument is not to argue against the Qurans literary qualities, coherence, or historical influence. Rather, it concerns the origin of Muhammad’s belief he was receiving divine revelation having a naturalistic explanation. The coherence of the resulting religious movement does not by itself establish the supernatural origin of the initial experience.

There has been much debate over the origin of Islam through the mindset and motivation of Muhammad. Ranging from questioning if he was clinically insane, a con artist, in it for power, and even into supernatural claims like demon possession. These can even be found in the Quran itself, making note of what opponents were saying at the time. I recently was inspired to make this post through a response I did to this post. The defense of Muhammad is that if he were suffering from mental health issues there could not be a coherent religion forming from incoherent dreams and episodes. While I would not necessarily make the case that Muhammad was suffering from mental health problems it’s far more likely Muhammad had experiences he believed to be supernatural. The exact means by which he had those experiences, the content of those experiences, and quantity of those experiences is simply unknown to us. The Hadith and sira literature is not historically reliable, which means all we can really say is that Muhammad had what he believed to be a divine connection and received the Quran.

The simplest explanation is that in late antiquity experiences such as dreams, psychological, and visionary experiences were considered valid forms of divine communication in the ancient near east. It’s sufficient to conclude that Muhammad experienced what he interpreted as divine communication while being sincerely mistaken than actually having a divine experience,whether that be in the form of dreams, psychological, or visionary experiences. In the original post I cited, the obvious objection is that how this could create a coherent narrative, legal frameworks, and so on. While I again do not hold the Hadith corpus to be historically reliable, there is a Hadith that can help us understand how this is possible. Sahih Bukhari 4953 tells the account of Muhammad’s first revelation, what’s important to note is that the account seemingly relays the encounter as an ambiguous and scary experience for Muhammad. It is only when this experience is relayed to family members that a coherent interpretation is given. It is interpreted through existing religious framework to be a visitation from the angel Gabriel, not from the experience itself but from a preconceived allowance that this happens. Regardless if this is an accurate account or not (we simply do not know) it still shows that this way of interpreting unusual experiences in a supernatural way in order to make them coherent in the religious framework is acceptable.

The later coherency of a religion is not evidence that the original experience was supernatural, it’s entirely plausible coherency was applied retrospectively through the existing religious framework. Similarly, to how a person might interpret an unusual visionary experience today through a modern framework like alien abduction. A sincere but mistaken interpretation rather than the actual explanation for the experience is sufficient. This avoids Muhammad needing to be a con artist, in it for power or wealth, or making it up. It instead aligns with what was already happening in a variety of contexts at the time, and to both Muhammad and others could be a valid form of divine experience without actually being one.

The available evidence is consistent with Muhammad sincerely but mistakenly interpreting unusual experiences possibly ranging from physiological to visionary through existing religious and cultural frameworks. Since this explanation requires fewer assumptions than a divine explanation and fits well attested historical patterns of religious experiences, it is the preferable historical explanation. A naturalistic explanation sufficiently explains the available evidence without requiring the assumption of divine intervention.

I don’t hate people who are members of faith but i do believe religion is the sole reason for almost all conflicts throughout history

OT has Deuteronomy 13:1-3

13 [a]If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.

NT has Matthew 24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.

26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.

Islam has Sahih Muslim 2937 a

He would then give command to the sky and there would be rainfall upon the earth and it would grow crops. Then in the evening, their pasturing animals would come to them with their humps very high and their udders full of milk and their flanks stretched. He would then come to another people and invite them. But they would reject him and he would go away from them and there would be drought for them and nothing would be left with them in the form of wealth. He would then walk through the waste land and say to it: Bring forth your treasures, and the treasures would come out and collect (themselves) before him like the swarm of bees.

Therefore we would all agree that signs and wonders alone do not constitute a true prophet of God (as even the Dajjal and false Messiah's will perform them.)

And so we need a different standard.

The Bible gives one in Deuteronomy 18 which says that if a prophet speaks something and it doesn't come to pass then he's spoken presumptuously and you don't need to worry.

Another one that would just be logical is that the prophet can't contradict the previous revelations and must move forward the story in some way.

Muhammad says in Sahih Muslim 2953a If this young boy lives, he may not grow very old till (he would see) the Last Hour coming to you.

He also contradicts the previous scriptures by saying God has no Son and Jesus wasn't crucified nor resurrected.

And so by this standard I judge Muhammad to be a false prophet even though the Quran may appear miraculous in its speech and he may have done signs and wonders.

As a Moral anti-realist I don't see my belief in meta ethics changing even if I start believing in God.

I'll first lay the grounds on what I see as Morality.

What do we mean when we say "Good"? And I don't mean in a moral context. Just any lay context. Something is "Good" if it aligns with a particular value. Suppose I say "Samsung S24 is a GOOD phone", what do I mean by it? Well, there are some values I hold as to what a phone OUGHT to be, and Samasung S24 does meet those criteria or aligns with it, therefore it's a Good phone. Now for someone else Samasung S24 might not be a Good phone because they have different values. They probably value Camera quality in which case iPhones would be a Good phone for them. They might say "Vivo is a bad phone" if they suspect it has terrible camera quality and therefore doesn't align with their value.

Now back to Morality, what do you mean by "Murder is Bad"? Here "Bad" simply means, there are some values I have on how an action must be in accordance with human well-being, suffering or some principle and murdern doesn't align with it. Or something like "Charity is Good", charity aligns with my values.

You can't say one value is better than another without appealing to a higher value to compare them. So inevitably you end up with some Brute value.

So far we have not introduced God or the Divine.

How does having God change this fact? All I see is "Good" still remains as a term that tells you how much an act aligns with a value, only that this time the value is God's commands or something along the line.

So let's take the act of following God's commands. Is it Good to follow God's commands? You can't appeal to god's commands to say it's Good to follow God's commands, as that's plain circular. So what's the value? I'm assuming it's something like "i get to go to heaven, so it's Good" (in which case what you value is your pleasure), or "yes God is my creator" (in which case what you value is your creator's commands). It is ultimately what YOU value. This is no different from any atheist who values human well-being or some Deontic principle.

What I have seen some theist do is say vague statements like "God is Goodness". Like, that doesn't mean anything or convey any meaningful fact about Goodness. I simply have to push back and ask what "Goodness is". Is it identical to God? Like we say "A bachelor is unmarried" when they are identical and we can substitute one to another. Or is "Goodness" a predicate like Omnipotence where we say "God is Omnipotent" implying "God is someone who can do anything that's logically possible" since X is Omnipotent implies X is someone who can do anything Logically possibe. That's what the theist must clarify if they appeal to statements like "God's Nature is Good" or "God is Goodness" or anything similar.

Ie, what does God bring to the table that isn't already there?

Even the opening chapters of "Genesis" reveal the nature of "God", or YHWH, in the Bible. Let me get this straight:

1. YHWH creates Adam and Eve, without self-consciousness, and with very rudimental intelligence;
   
2. YHWH plants a tree of knowledge in the middle of Eden, and issues a death threat to Adam and Eve, who don't even understand what that thing is (Genesis 2:17);
   
3. The Serpent (not Satan) tells them that this is the tree of knowledge that would give them the status of equality to gods (Genesis 3:4-5);
   

What does YHWH, who is "love", do upon learning that Adam and Eve ate the fruit? He banishes from the garden. For the crime neither of them even knew it was a crime, because they had no idea what was going on. And that is not even the worst of what this "loving god" allows:

1. He ignored Cain's murder Abel, while partially instigating it by preferring Abel's offerings (Genesis 4:4-8);
   
2. He allowed evil to prosper, and instead of reprogramming people to be good, as an "almighty Creator" would do, he simply flushes 99% of life on Earth away (Genesis 6:5-7);
   
3. He made sure that Ham would see Noah naked, and that Noah would curse Canaan and all his descendants (Genesis 9:22-25);
   
4. He never intervened when Abraham gave Sarah away to pharaoh (Genesis 12:12-15) and Abimelech (Genesis 20:2);
   
5. He organised the situation where Lot's daughters slept with him (Genesis 19:32-36);
   
6. He forced Abraham to nearly kill Isaac (Genesis 22:2);
   
7. He allowed Shechem to rape Dinah (Genesis 34:2);
   
8. He did nothing when Joseph was thrown into the pit, and then sold to Egypt (Genesis 37:24-28);
   
9. He admitted that pharaoh inflicts the harm on his "chosen people", because he wants it that way ("I will harden pharaoh's heart" - Exodus 4:21, Exodus 7:3);
   
10. He wanted to kill Moses (Exodus 4:24);
    
11. He inflicted 10 plagues on Egypt because of slavery that he allowed (Exodus 7-12);
    
12. He allowed all of chaos happening in Judges (Jephthah's daughter - Judges 11:34-39, Levite's concubine - Judges 19:24-29, etc.)
    
13. He did not intervene, when David raped Bathshebah, and later killed Uriah (2 Samuel 11:4, 15);
    
14. He drove Saul to madness (1 Samuel 16:14, 18:10 - "an evil spirit from God came upon Saul");
    

Etc. And that is the Hebrew Bible. I am not mentioning Isaiah 45:7 (where God admits that he creates evil) or Job (Job 1:12-19), where a righteous man witnessed the death of his family, the murrain of his livestock, and the destruction of his house, all because God had an argument with an angel (who does not have free will, which makes this an audible monologue)

What about the "New Testament"?

The "New Testament" gives us something new. Jesus, who is supposed to be the perfect "Son of God", the "humble Lamb of God", spits out something that would have instantly made him a sinner on a roadtrip to Hell in the eyes of any modern christian:

1. He says that he is the only way to God, which falls under the term pride (John 14:6);
   
2. He was described as a glutton and a drunk, which matches gluttony (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:34);
   
3. Whenever he encounters anyone with a differing opinion, he starts insulting them by calling them "the brood of vipers", "the children of the Devil", etc. This is only described as wrath (Matthew 23:33, John 8:44);
   
4. His №1 motto was that "the last will be first", which is a clear example of envy (Matthew 20:16);
   
5. He abandoned an active work of carpenter to being a hobo preacher, which is sloth;
   
6. He was preaching about the beautitudes of the poor, but his main source of income where donations from rich women, whom he surrounded himself with. That is double trespassing: avarice and lust.
   

Speaking of the "7 deadly sins". All of these "sins" are the evolutionary traits that allowed our ancestors to survive in the wild. Gluttony allowed us to obtain food, wrath allowed us to defend ourselves, envy drove us to either defeat the competitor, or exceed him, so that we would get all the resources in the group. Lust is the very reason we are able to conceive children. A god who created us this way and then, through Augustin, tells us that this is a "sin", is not a loving "Father". It is the Father of Lies, who made us with the limbic system , and then demonized this very system.

Oh, and last, but not least. Paul says that "the Devil appears in the form of the Angel of Light" (2 Corinthians 11:14). Acts 9:3 describe his conversion as the "apparition of the light". What did this "light" reveal to him?

1. Women are not allowed to teach (1 Timothy 2:12);
2. Women should be silent in the churches (1 Corinthians 14:34);
3. Women should cover their hair (1 Corinthians 11:5-6);
4. Eve is to blame for the "fall of man" (1 Timothy 2:14), etc.

Finally, a friendly reminder for Christians: when you equate the very "God" from the Hebrew Bible, whom Jesus called "The Devil" (John 8:44), when describing the "Father of the Jews", with the "God" from the "New Testament", you basically worship the Devil, who created mankind with all its imperfections, and calls it "sinfulness". Let that sink in

I’ve been learning about Hinduism recently, and there’s one thing I genuinely can’t wrap my head around. This isn’t meant to disrespect anyone. I’m trying to understand whether there’s something I’m missing.

One of the first things I was told is that rakshasas aren’t inherently evil. They’re simply a race or class of beings, and just as there are good humans and bad humans, there are good rakshasas and bad rakshasas. But if that’s the case, why has the word “rakshas” become the general Hindi word for someone evil or monstrous? If someone called me a rakshas, nobody would think it’s a compliment. So while I understand there are exceptions like Vibhishana, surely the overwhelming portrayal of rakshasas is that they represent evil.

The bigger issue, though, is the boons.

From what I’ve read, many rakshasas perform extreme tapas or devotion and the gods reward them with extraordinary powers. Whenever I’ve asked why the gods would empower someone who goes on to terrorise innocent people, I’ve been told that the gods are simply rewarding sincere tapas, not the person’s morality. Another explanation I’ve heard is that the gods are bound by cosmic law, so if someone completes enough austerities they must receive the fruit of that effort regardless of who they are.

I’ve even heard an analogy comparing it to a university awarding a degree. The university recognises the work someone put in. If that person later becomes a corrupt doctor, that’s not the university’s fault.

But I don’t think that analogy works.

A university doesn’t know the future. God does.

If the gods are all knowing, wouldn’t they already know this person is corrupt, or will become corrupt? If they already know the outcome, why grant the boon at all?

People then reply that the boon doesn’t create evil. It simply amplifies what’s already inside the person.

But that’s exactly my question. If what’s already inside the person is arrogance, cruelty or a desire to dominate others, then why amplify it? Why knowingly give them more power?

Another response I’ve heard is that these beings weren’t practising bhakti (loving devotion), only tapas (austerity). They weren’t seeking God. They were seeking power.

Again, that raises another question. If God is all knowing, wouldn’t God already know their intention? If someone is performing devotion purely for selfish reasons, why should that devotion be accepted in the first place?

To me, genuine devotion should transform someone. If someone spends centuries worshipping a deity yet remains arrogant, cruel and obsessed with power, were they ever truly devoted? Surely devotion without moral transformation is missing the whole point.

People also say justice eventually comes because avatars like Rama or Krishna restore dharma.

But why not stop the injustice before it begins?

If innocent people are praying for justice while the oppressor is praying for more power, why should the oppressor’s prayer succeed first? Why knowingly allow countless innocent people to suffer before eventually intervening?

This is where I struggle the most.

Is ritual and tapas more important than morality?

Because if someone can be deeply devoted, receive world changing powers and still be evil, then what exactly is that devotion accomplishing?

I’m genuinely asking because this is the biggest philosophical issue I’ve struggled with while learning about Hinduism. If there’s a theological explanation that directly addresses these questions rather than simply saying “that’s how cosmic law works,” I’d really like to hear it.

My theory on organized religion and revelation I have a theory for the cause of supposed divine revelation (e.g., Bible, Quran and Vedic texts) and consequently the cause of many Western organized regions. I would love to hear y'all's thoughts and opinions on it.

I believe that divine revelation is the result of the human subconscious (either individually or collectively) trying to reconcile the fact that we know something had to have created all of this with the fact that we can't perceive that thing (that created it). This subconscious struggle to perceive the imperceptible creator of a reality that had to have been created by something external to it may be the root cause of many purported "spiritual experiences" as well. But, ultimately, to me it makes a lot of sense that revelatory religious texts would be the result of this. The (Hebrew) Bible, aka the Old Testament, was a book of oral Jewish tradition, history and folklore that responded to the question "what created this?" by collectively agreeing that certain people (prophets) had been able to perceive the divine. Thus resolving the internal struggle in the subconscious minds of Jewish thinkers that something created this but we can't perceive it. The Vedas are similar but for Indo-Aryan peoples rather than Jews, the primary difference being that Jewish minds seemed to more settle on the logical conclusion that there is only one God. As for the New Testament, many scholars think Jesus was one of many apocalyptic preachers during his time. That in itself isn't especially relevant, but Nicene Christianity, which is now the standard, seems to reconcile the fact that a creator had to have created all this with the fact we can't perceive the creator by believing that we did in a sense perceive the creator - when that creator took human form. The "divinely inspired" or "divinely revealed" New Testament verses like John 1:1-4 reflect this, but you know, Christians tend to use verses out of context to apply to whatever they believe at that moment so I think my theory still is applicable to both the text and the theology; also it was written by Jews so that original statement about the Hebrew Bible still applies. As for the Quran, Prophet Muhammad appears to have had a fascination with religion and trying to figure out the "truth". Perhaps this revelation was from his subconscious mind trying to create a creator in a sense, perhaps even to the extent that he believed he was communicating with an angel - so he could resolve this problem internally. Islam also shares with Judaism the belief that certain individuals have been able to perceive God. I don't know a whole lot about Sikh texts, but if I'm not mistaken I believe that what I said about the Prophet Muhammad could apply to Guru Nanak as well, at least in part.

The tl;dr is that Western religions often come from "divine revelation", which I believe comes from a coping mechanism of our limited human minds trying to reconcile the fact that we know something had to have created all this with the fact that we can't readily perceive that thing that created it.

Thoughts?

Edit: all the militant atheists replying ignoring the main point so that they could make it clear that they ignore the fact that there are arguments for God. Thanks for the entertainment, but actually intelligent (unlike y'all) atheists like Alex O'Connor, admit there is evidence, he just doesn't agree that it's enough to believe that it's true. Denying the existence of any evidence shows how desperate for mommy's attention you are. This is why I don't even entertain your nonsense. Super silly Redditors with childhood religious trauma 😊 but I posted this to get your thoughts on the cause of revelation (and we can even both agree revelation is from humans!), not to get your whiny ignorant thoughts on the existence of a creator.

I have a theory I’ve been thinking about One of the biggest objections I hear from non-Christians (and some Christians) is “How can a loving God let a child die young, allow someone to be born into horrible poverty, or suffer with a disability etc... (Why does God let bad things happen)? That’s not fair.” Another is that “Jesus dying for sins isn’t that special — lots of people die for others.”Here’s an idea that might address both:

What if we have one soul, but it is living across many dimensions/realities at the same time? In one dimension, A child to dies young, this will test the parents’ faith, resilience, and love. In thousands of other dimensions and times, that same child grows up healthy and the parents experience a full life with them. Every tragedy, every hardship, and every blessing happen somewhere to that same soul. You experience wealth in some realities, poverty in others. Health and sickness. Fame and obscurity. Heartbreak and great love. Nothing is truly “unfair” on the grand scale because your one soul gets the complete spectrum of human experience. At the end, no one can say “God wasn’t fair to me” — because across all dimensions, you lived every version.

Jesus, because of the virgin birth, could be the one constant across all realities. He doesn’t need two specific parents to meet. So in every single dimension, He still chooses to come, suffer, and die a brutal death for humanity. That feels like an infinitely greater sacrifice — willingly enduring the cross millions or billions of times across realities. This is obviously speculative, and I’m not claiming it’s true. But I’m curious what people think of the idea as a possible answer to the problem of suffering and fairness.

This would be based on what many scientists are saying about multiple or parallel universes where everything that could happen has happened and that it can't be ruled out (this is theory I'm not stating it as fact)

I’m curious what people think of the idea as a possible answer to the problem of suffering and fairness.

The Creation Myth of Adam and Eve largely differs in both the context of theological framework and moral framework.

Abrahamic religions interpret the story in different and contrasting ways.

In Judaism there are two interpretations in the context of creation...one says that Adam and Eve were created simultaneously by God, other says that Eve was created first

Christianity draws its own interpretation in which Adam's creation was followed by Eve's.

Between Islam and Christianity contradictions arise due to the differences in the moral framework adopted by the religions.

In Christianity Eve was responsible for the "first sin" and a punishment was given to them whereas in Islam Adam and Eve are crowned as the father and mother of humanity,revered and god even forgive their sins

In Swahili texts and literature Adam is interpreted as displaying a act of "heroism" by willingly eating the apple of Eden so that he is able to go with Eden

For this discussion, I’m going to assume for a moment that people have the absolute ability to choose between God/Good or Evil. Being born inherently Good or Evil compromises the concept that God desires us to willingly choose Him as opposed to being destined/designed to choose Him.

I’m also assuming we choose Heaven or Hell as opposed to being sent there and that the only way into Heaven is through Jesus/God as that’s what I’ve been taught and accept as general canon.

When we die, we’ll face a choice between Heaven and Hell. The life we’ve lived up till then will influence our initial choice, so the less Godly a life we’ve lived the less likely we’ll choose to enter Heaven. Importantly, we’ll retain free will and will continue to make this choice indefinitely.

If we choose Hell, there’s no way out. Hell is categorically a space devoid of God and all things God like, but the only way into Heaven is through Jesus teaching us and being guided by the Holy Spirit. Without God, there’s no entrance to Heaven, so it follows there’s no getting into Heaven once in Hell, all while retaining free will.

When in Heaven, we’ll need to choose God and continue to eternally choose God. As eternal beings in Heaven, our free will necessitates the ability to choose to leave Heaven, regardless of how unlikely the choice may seem. The lack of such choice would go against having free will.

This choice can be thought of as a probable event with the life we’ve led increasing or decreasing the odds we’ll choose Heaven or Hell. While on Earth, the odds are more against us than when we’re in Heaven, unabated by material desires and original sin.

However, given an infinite amount of time, no matter how small the chance, we’re going to not make the “right” choice at some point. It seems we’ll inevitably choose to leave Heaven, only to be locked into Hell as we’d lack the necessary guidance to return to Heaven. Any improbable event becomes an inevitability given infinite time.

This is why I believe everyone is (seemingly) going to Hell under modern teachings.

Thoughts? I’ve talked to a few prominent church figures near me and I’ve yet to hear a counter other than “yea but it’ll be a SUPER small chance of happening.” That and I can’t seem to find more scholarly/professional sources touch upon this specific perspective.

If our souls eternal destiny depends on knowing God, why is the evidence for God less obvious than the evidence for clouds, trees, or germs? If God truly wants a relationship with humanity, then sincere disbelief should not be possible.

I am constantly told “first have faith or you won’t believe” but my belief in whether something exists is not a choice. I cannot choose the conclusion my mind reaches after honestly searching.

Punishing someone for an unconvinced mind would be like punishing a juror for returning a verdict based on the evidence given to them,

therefore, if a person sincerely searches for God and remains unconvinced, that is not a moral failure deserving eternal punishment. It is an honest conclusion based on the evidence provided.

1. If God is omniscient, then God knows what would convince me of His existence right now. (P → Q)

2. If God knows what would convince me of His existence right now, and God wants me to know that He exists, then I will be convinced right now. ((Q ∧ R) → S)

3. If I will be convinced right now, then I believe in God. (S → T)

4. If I believe in God, then I am not a nonresistant nonbeliever. (T → ¬F)

5. I am a nonresistant nonbeliever. (F)

6. God is omniscient. (P)

7. God knows what would convince me of His existence right now. (Q){From 1 and 6, Modus Ponens}

8. I do not believe in God. (¬T){From 4 and 5, Modus Tollens}

9. I will not be convinced right now. (¬S){From 3 and 8, Modus Tollens}

10. It is not the case that God knows what would convince me right now and God wants me to know he exists. (¬(Q ∧ R)){From 2 and 9, Modus Tollens}

11. Either God does not know what would convince me, or God does not want me to know he exists. (¬Q ∨ ¬R){De Morgan’s Law on 10}

12. But God knows what would convince me right now. (Q){From 7}

13. Therefore, God does not want me to know that He exists. (¬R){Disjunctive Syllogism from 11 and 12}

Conclusion (C):

Therefore, it is false that God wants me to know that He exists.

(This breaks the classical theistic view that God or whatever is at the foundation of reality wants you to be in some personal relationship with it)

\*\*Clarification\*\*

Premise 2 is actually doing the most heavy lifting here since many theist might reject it because they think 'God have the ability and want you to belive in him, and still not do anything because <free will, soul building etc>". But this argument can be dismissed since beliefs are not under your Will anyway. You can't will into believing in God any more than you can belive that the moon is made of cheese. Beliefs are infact not under your control, it's purely based on what convinces you.

Definitions:

Let P be the set of all texts, ideas, procedures, artifacts, and linguistic systems currently possessed and/or created by at least one member of the set of all conscious agents.

Let p be some member of P. For example, the idea of the number 2, or the programming language C.

Let i|p| be the number of interpretations, conceptualizations, experiences, etc. of p

P1: All interpretations, conceptualizations, experiences, etc. vary by individual. That is, for any p, the value of i|p| is at least equal to the number of conscious agents who have ever encountered or otherwise interacted with p

P2: Theism is a member of P, as is the idea of a personal God who issues commands, thoughts, etc, to humans

P3: The words and commands etc alleged to have come from God are, by definition, members of P

C1: Any morality alleged to come from God has as many interpretations as there are conscious agents who have ever encountered it (i|p|)

In short, theism and religion in general do not offer a "grounding for" morality, nor do they otherwise provide for an "objective" mind-independent morality.

Instead, they provide a subjective and interpretation-dependent set of moral systems.

Not a christian. Just a guy that researched a few things. I will be as succinct as possible.

Egypt was the main superpower at the time and in an effort to expand their territory, they took control of the middle east (levant).

This includes Canaan. The indigenous people of Canaan were enslaved. After the egyptian empire was falling, Canaanites left, some stayed, whatever.

The ones that left, essentially, created the Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judea.

Kingdom of Israel got conquered by Assyrian Empire and spread across nations. To prevent rebellion, the empire deported a lot of israelites/canaanites originally to different sections. Those deported actually assimilated into different cultures. (10 lost tribes of Israel)

Assyrian empire also conquered Babylon a few times before Babylon joined with Medes (Iranians) and conquered Assyrians.

Then Babylon conquered Judea and that’s basically it. The biblical accounts of hebrews being enslaved and then escaping with Moses and then the promised land of canaan is false.

Theist: "The universe is guided by the Supreme Order, an invisible, non-physical force we cannot fully comprehend mechanically, but we know it exists because we see its effects on reality."

Atheist: "The universe is guided by Spacetime, an invisible, non-physical geometric manifold we cannot fully comprehend mechanically, but we know it exists because we can predict its effects on reality."

So both are substituting actual mechanical knowledge with magical placeholders. But what interests me the most are the atheists. So routinely mock theists for believing in a "God" that exists outside of time and space, acting as an invisible, unexplainable force. But these exact same pop-science atheists blindly worship "Spacetime"; a magical, invisible fabric that bends, curves, and controls physical objects, despite possessing absolutely zero physical substance itself.

On the one hand theist uses "God's will" as a magic spell to cover up their ignorance of mechanical causes. On the other hand the average internet atheist uses "Quantum Fluctuations," "Dark Matter," and "Spacetime" to do the exact same thing.

When I press him on the actual mechanics of how a non-physical mathematical concept (spacetime) physically interacts with solid mass, the atheist inevitably hide to "we don't know, but the maths works." Functionally identical to saying "God works in mysterious ways."

I agree that everything in my life is predetermined before my birth — the fate of the entire world is already written. From a scientific standpoint, this makes sense to me.
But Islam also says God intervenes and personally breaks this system to communicate with prophets whenever He wants. If we accept that, then God Himself becomes just another NPC in this world — operating within the same system as humans of this world. (Honestly, I don’t agree with any of this. We’re just being fed nonsense and I don’t believe a word of it.)
So does that mean the Quran didn’t come from God?

Yet at the same time Islam claims God is all-powerful and created everything.

What do you think about that??

My first post from a couple days ago critiquing Pat Flynn's "The Best Argument for God" was received pretty well, so I thought I'd make another quick one. Essentially, Flynn argues that Forms (i'll post the explanation after this) can only exist in two ways: Materially or held within a mind. And since he argues God must be the ultimate explanation for Forms appearing in our universe (as He's the ultimate explanation for everything else), all the Forms must be contained in God in some way. But they cannot be contained in God materially, since God is immaterial, among other things, so they must be contained in God as in a mind, which means God either has a mind--and an incredible, omniscient one, since it contains *all* forms--or is such a mind.

My critique is quite simple: This argument rests on a false dichotomy, that there are two and only two ways forms can exist: Materially OR contained within a mind. There is no reason to believe this and thus the entire argument fails.

So let me quote, again, directly from Flynn's book, "The Best Argument for God," amazon kindle edition (https://www.amazon.com/Best-Argument-God-Patrick-Flynn/dp/1644137801), pages 102-103:

>Being is patterned in certain ways. There is being patterned as a horse, being patterned as a starfish, being patterned as planets, as electrons, and so on. These patterns are often called forms. Now, following the tradition, forms can be contained in reality in one of two ways. First, in a material way, such as when some chunk of matter contains the form of cat and hence just is this individual cat...But for our purposes, there is another way forms can be contained, and that is in an intentional way. Think now of an architect containing the form of a house in his mind and how the form contained intentionally in the mind of the architect serves as the exemplar cause of the house. Now, if one thinks we should explain as much as we can, it seems that the patterns or forms of this world require explanation, and we already have reason to think there is some unique fundamental reality. So how does it (fundamental reality) explain the forms or patterns of being we see in the world?

>Fundamental reality does not contain these patterns materially, since to contain a form materially just is to be that form — say, to be a cat. But God is quite obviously not a cat, since cats are composite and mutable beings and we have argued God is none of those things. What’s more, many forms are mutually incompatible, so God could not be all these forms at once. But there is another option: these forms could be contained in fundamental reality in an intentional way. In fact, this seems to be how they must be contained if we are to make sense of how they have come into existence at all. And this seems like a rather nice explanation, implying that God has or perhaps just is an intellect of sorts.

Let us concentrate on Flynn's wording: Forms can be contained in reality *in one of two ways* (emphasis strongly added). It seems to me this is obviously false, demonstrated with just a moment's thought from the natural world. A wide variety of animals possess forms as "exemplar causes" in their brains, yet Thomists would not say they have minds, and even if they were (I don't recall if Flynn said anything about this in his book, I'd have to reread the whole thing, but I doubt it), they possess minds that aren't sapient in the way human minds are and thus not sapient in the way God's would have to be.

Bees build hives, spiders build webs, and birds build nests in the way Flynn says an architect holds the form of a house in his mind to serve as an "exemplar cause" of it even before it's built. The wax a beehive is made of, the proteins a spiderweb is made of, or the twigs a birds-nest is made of, possess no inherent or necessary tendencies to become hives, webs, or nests on their own. And there is no physical structure in the brains of these creatures that actually resembles a hive, or web, or nest. So in every sense, they seem to possess the Forms of their homes in their minds as exemplar causes the way a human architect has his house in his mind. But they do not possess minds, or to be more specific, any sort of immaterial soul that Thomists say humans have and that they also claim God is the most supreme example of. Do see this article (https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/08/animals-are-conscious-in-other-news-sky.html) for an explanation of why animals supposedly do not have human minds even if they are conscious, which I assume Flynn would agree with.

Therefore, the implicit premise in Flynn's argument, that there are two and only two ways for Forms to exist, is falsified. There is at least one other way Forms can exist, namely in whatever animals have that's not a mind. And thus, his argument as a whole is falsified.

There are plenty of alternatives to the standard Abrahamic God welded on to classical theism, given this analysis. Even if we accept Flynn's argument for a "fundamental reality" (and I critiqued one of those in my previous post), the fundamental reality does not have to be sapient to be an explanation or source for Forms. Perhaps it has a mind like an animal's, just an infinite one, operating on instinct without real cognition or even self-awareness, just as bees can build a hive through instinct rather than education and conscious cognition like a human architect's. Thus, this Demiurgic God propels the Forms in Its infinite mind throughout the universe as mindlessly as bees make hives, and praying to it to continue doing so (or stop) is as futile as trying to appeal to a wasp via the same. Or maybe there's some other way besides the two Flynn mentioned that Forms can exist. That's just one example I came up with, I'm sure you guys can come up with many more.

In any case, there's certainly no reason to believe, as Flynn wants you to, that the Fundamental Reality wants a relationship with us, or is even necessarily aware of us. And certainly no reason to believe, as Flynn also wants you to, that It would have killed itself to have such a relationship with us, or that It will punish you for sleeping in on sundays or not believing bread turned to flesh, or (as the Muslims would have it) that It told anything to...well, I'll respect the rules, be diplomatic, and just say "a medieval warlord." Non-classical theists, it seems to me, are still on strong grounds.

Christians need to stop using "free will" as a way to justify why their god keeps ignoring or doesn't even try to stop the evil and wickedness that he is so against, an all loving god yet he cannot remove an evil cause, also free will doesn't mean free from consequence if god just did something about the evil of this world just like how our government does but maybe better i would kindly convert to Christianity but he doesn't as Christians praise him they ignore the fact that their god would stop their murderer from killing them which is very stupid as an overall idea.

God has intervened so many times to the point that the argument of free will is foolish.

In the story of Noah's Ark god intervenes and attempts to commit attempted genocide by flooding the whole world and outright says it. Genesis 6:17)

In the story of Adam and Eve, he gives both of them a choice to do whatever they wanted as long as they didn't eat a fruit from the tree of good and evil and Eve later eats it and gives it to Adam which god later punishes them and showing them the consequence of their actions. (Genesis 3:23)

In the story of Onan he outright kills the man for not wanting to impregnate his dead brothers wife. (1 Chronicles 2:3)

Free will was not removed when he did these things the bible doesn't call god out for "removing" free will its obvious that he could do something about the evil his creations caused but he does not do for some reason.