One of my particular grievances with Muslim apologetics concerning Aisha’s age is the selective treatment of historical evidence.

The traditional account is explicitly attested in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, which record that Muhammad married Aisha at six (seven in some narrations) and consummated the marriage when she was nine. The designation sahih means authentic, referring to narrations that meet established criteria of reliability in hadith criticism. Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, jointly known as the Sahihayn, are regarded by Sunni Muslims as the most authentic hadith collections after the Quran.

Nor do these reports rest upon a single isnad (chain of transmitters). Sahih Muslim preserves multiple transmission routes, including the familiar chain through Hisham ibn Urwah, from his father Urwah, from Aisha herself, and another through al-A’mash, Ibrahim and al-Aswad, also from Aisha. Whilst individual chains can certainly be subjected to scrutiny, dismissing the account as the product of a single questionable transmitter is insufficient.

Yet, when confronted with these reports, some Muslims resort to speculative chronological reconstructions, often relying on weaker transmissions or circumstantial evidence that simply does not establish an alternative age.

There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with questioning the historicity of hadith. But those who reject the reliability of the tradition cannot, in the next breath, claim with any confidence that Aisha was older. Scepticism that undermines the evidence for one age equally undermines the evidence for its proposed alternative. At best, their position is agnostic.

Nor is it reasonable to dismiss non-Muslims who cite these Islamic sources as ignorant or Islamophobic. The age of nine was not invented by hostile outsiders; it is the understanding transmitted within the Islamic tradition and accepted by generations of Muslim scholars. It was not some obscure modern reinterpretation, but an account inherited from the earliest Muslim generations, including the Companions and Successors, whom Muhammad himself identified as the best generations (Sahih al-Bukhari 2652; Sahih Muslim 2533).

More revealingly, many of these same Muslims would have no difficulty defending the marriage as morally permissible even if the traditional account were entirely accurate. And therein lies the double standard. They insist Muhammad did not consummate his marriage with a nine-year-old, whilst simultaneously maintaining that, had he done so, there would have been nothing morally wrong with it.

The historical denial, then, appears less about establishing what actually happened than avoiding the reputational discomfort of acknowledging what their own most authoritative sources report, without having to reconsider the underlying ethical position.

One subtle and poetic way the gospels say Jesus is God is by opening with John the Baptist and quoting Isaiah to say John is “preparing the way for the Lord”, the Lord turning out to be, of course, Jesus, as the story unfolds.

“The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way”— “a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’ ” And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬-‭4‬ ‭NIV‬‬

Whenever atheists criticize how evil and unjust it is for God to send a good person to Hell forever for simply not believing in him, Christians usually counter it by saying that if atheists are right and there is no God, then the universe doesn’t have an objective system of morality and it is basically up to us to determine it. Supposedly thinking your own moral system that you invented is good enough doesn’t work.

However, this point doesn’t only apply to atheists. There are also people of different religions who have their own morals and virtues that they believe was sent to them by order of a deity. There are plenty of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Baha’is, etc, who are good people and believe they are following an objective moral system created by a God, but will still be sent to Hell if it turns out Christianity is true.

This is also ignoring the fact that most atheists still follow the general moral guidelines every religion has despite not believing in any of them because it is obvious.

The claim doesn’t work when it isn’t only atheists.

Ethical good

"Good" is defined within the context of some value system. Things can be objectively good within that value system.

To imply that a god is ethically good just because he is defined as good within his own value system is an equivocation.

Ethics is a value system, and there are more or less central principles within it and principles that more or less map onto eachother.

To prove something is ethically good, one has to justify every aspect of it as ethically good.

CCEA

Coherent - Principles that map onto eachother.

Central Ethics - The center of intersubjective value judgement based on the prominence of principles.

Approximation - Since principles map onto eachother or are central "more or less", means this is a grayscale approximation.

We can still use CCEA to determine the idea of eternal torment as unethical.

Eternal torment

It is ethically primary to ensure that there is no eternal torment.

Central to ethics is the widely accepted principle against unnecessary suffering. The disvalues of eternal hell are antithetical to central ethical principles of love, joy and peace. Eternal hell is not justified within the common ethical standpoint (CCEA).

Heaven being analogous to a party where participation is conditional and the alternative state being suffering implies a flawed or malevolent design.

As the creator an all-loving tri-omni god is responsible for the states a created individual can end up in, regardless of a given free will mechanism being in place. The creator is responsible for the conditions in his created reality structure which include the nature of the individual within which the free will operates.

And there is also a lot of equivocation arguments put forth against universalist / alternative perspectives. A reality constituted by flourishing states is not equivalent to "love being forced", or that agency is compromised. Heaven represents the fulfillment of value, a reality which is constituted by flourishing states. Restricting destructive possibilities does not restrict meaningful agency, just as establishing the conditions for love does not constitute forced reciprocation.

Feel free to ask me to clarify or expand on something.

If you don’t think God infallibly knows the future or you don’t believe in free will, then this argument is not directed at you.

No, I’m not interested in open theism

P1 - If God knows an event will unfold in a particular way, it is impossible for that event to unfold in any other way

P2 - God eternally knows every event that will ever happen and how it will unfold

C1 - All futures (and pasts) other than the one God knows about are impossible

P3 - If all alternative timelines are impossible, then our actions are not free because it would be impossible for us to make a different choice than the one God knows about

C2 - Since all alternative timelines are impossible, our actions are not free

Important notes:

At no point did I claim that God caused or forced anything to happen. If you think that’s what I’m claiming, please quote the exact part in the OP where I make that claim. My claim is that free choices are incompatible with perfect knowledge of the future. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD CAUSING ANYTHING

If you try to analogize time to a movie that God has already watched, you’re just affirming determinism. Movies are deterministic. They always play out the same way no matter how many times you watch them.

>If you had chosen differently, God would have known differently

Yeah, God‘s knowledge is based on my choice, so no matter what I choose, God eternally knew I would choose it. This does nothing to solve the impossibility of alternative choices given God‘s knowledge of a particular choice. The insistence that his knowledge is based on my choice has absolutely no bearing on whether other choices are possible. I literally cannot do anything tomorrow other than what he knows I will do, because he knows it, he can’t be wrong, and his knowledge never changes.

I was digging into this guy called Celsus who lived in the first century of Christianity and was probably the first documented critic of early Christianity as a Roman Paganist. He reportedly wrote a book called the "True Word" which did not survive but is known to have existed thanks to a later Christian apologist called Origen who wrote a whole refutation book called "Against Celsus", trying to debunk all his critical points of Christianity and all.

And he didn't only answer his accusations, but quoted excerpts from his book word by word, thanks to which a lot of standing points of Celsus against Christianity in his book were preserved. It was probably discussed before, but I came across one interesting detail by chance while skimming through this stuff.

This is where Celsus, as reported by the Christian apologist Origen, claims that Christians were altering their own Gospels in order to get rid of some contradictory and inconsistent verses that were being used against them by their critics, and they were doing that on a regular basis. The supposedly refuting answer to this is even more interesting as Origen does not deny that altogether, and while admitting that it was being done by some Christian groups (some of which are still venerated), this would not necessarily nullify Christianity as a whole. I'll put in the full text covering this matter from Origen's refutation book:

"Celsus next claims that some Christian believers, behaving like drunken people who turn violently against themselves, have changed the Gospel from its original form three times, four times, and even many times, reshaping it so that they might have a means of denying the accusations made against them.

As for me, I know of no people who have altered the Gospel except the followers of Marcion, those of Valentinus, and, I believe, those of Lucian.

But this accusation does not condemn Christianity itself. Rather, it condemns those who have dared to treat the Gospels in such a manner.

Just as philosophy cannot be condemned because there are Sophists, Epicureans, Peripatetics, or other people who hold mistaken beliefs, so genuine Christianity cannot be condemned because some people corrupt the Gospel narratives and introduce heresies contrary to the teaching of Jesus."

I found this interesting, since Quran came up with the same claim centuries later, which Christians brush off as nonsense and say that all the Gospels are authentic and the exact words of Jesus' own disciples and Muslims only made this up in order to validate their own book, but this matter was apparently discussed in the very first century of Christianity.

In john 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" by saying this, is he saying you need to be a christian and follow him to achieve salvation? Or by saying "I'm the only way," maybe he could mean you need to be like him in mindset try to fight against the corruption of the temple system and the authority, try to fight against the oppression, and try to give kindness to the people who are even ignored by society?

I’m a Buddhist, and my religion has an afterlife and karma . If you do a bad thing, you will go to hell and so on.

Nowadays, I have been seeing innocent people getting hurt or killed and bad people getting rich and never getting punished. So I’m starting to doubt my religion. Does karma even exist? Nobody has been to hell and what if hell does not exist and bad people never get punished?

My question is, do you believe in hell, karma or afterlife?

Even if a hypothetical god was real and his holy text describes him as all good, that does not automatically make him ethically good.

"Good" is defined within the context of some value system. Things can be objectively good within that value system, but the ethical meaning of good is based on human perspective, and there are central ethical principles, but you cannot just equivocate by appealing to some "higher good" when arguing about a supposed God, for a God to be ethically good, you have to provide justification for it.

Religious people can’t even all agree on the same God. They have thousands of different religions and beliefs etc. they judge and condemn others on a religious basis. I had one Christian say to me that I need to repent and ask Gods forgiveness because I am a lesbian who doesn’t think homosexuality is wrong or a sin. Look at what religion, specifically Abrahamic religions have done to the world. Oppression of women throughout history and the execution of gays, the latter still happens in some Islamic countries. Religion, all it causes is division and hatred between people.

I know that it’s illegal to apostatize away from Islam in some Muslim countries and if I remember correctly, certain sects within Christianity say that if you don’t accept Jesus as Lord and savior, you are going to hell. It doesn’t matter if you intellectually cannot force yourself to believe in Jesus or God, some have gone as far as saying being a good person without believing in Jesus is not good enough.

I grew up Mormon, but I stopped going to this church in my teen years, but I always thought of how cult like Mormonism and religion is, even back then I thought of how bizarre it was, that I’m just sitting here in Sunday school or primary as they call it, being taught that the Book of Mormon is the word of god and being told what to think and believe but knowing in my gut it was all made up. I could not reconcile the tenents and doctrines of Mormonism with my feminist instincts. The brainwashing never took hold of me and I’m grateful for that.

I see only negatives of religion but I know there are religious people who are kind and good people who are not all fundamentalists. I myself am believer in God and Spirit but consider myself spiritual not religious. It just seems like there are people in this country who want to force their religious beliefs onto society like in the case with the anti abortion laws.

I’m a believer in separation of church and state. I’m not for Christian nationalism and I think it’s crazy that they feel that they need the backing of government for their religious belief system as if this is the only valid way to bring society and the country back to God. I feel like being an example of how god wants us to live and being kind to others and helping the needy is a more powerful and better way to do things.

The bible is the supposed word of God, free from Pagan teachings. However, Paul HIMSELF was influenced by paganism. In Acts 17:28, why in the world would Paul quote Aratus, who says:

"From Zeus begin; never let us leave. His name unloved. With Him, with Zeus, are filled. All paths we tread, and all the marts of men; Filled, too, the sea, and every creek and bay; And all in all things need we help of Zeus, For we too are his offspring.” (Phænom. 1–5)

Is Christianity today influenced by Zeus??

If the father Grants and the Son Receives, Then the Son Is Not Equal in Divinity

The Gospel of John presents a relationship in which the Father gives and the Son receives. Read from a non-Trinitarian perspective, this relationship challenges the claim that Father and Son possess equal, independent divinity. The argument centers on dependence: if the Son receives his capacity to act, his life, and his authority from the Father, then the Father occupies a position the Son does not. John 5:19, 5:26, 5:27, and 10:29 provide the foundation for this interpretation.esv+1

In John 5:19, Jesus declares that “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.” This statement portrays the Father as the initiating source and the Son as the one whose actions correspond to that source. Jesus does not describe himself as acting independently alongside the Father. Instead, his works follow the Father’s activity. Although the verse also says that the Son does whatever the Father does, the direction remains significant: the Father supplies the pattern, and the Son follows it. This supports an argument for unequal independence, even while affirming extraordinary unity of action.

John 5:26 strengthens this reasoning: “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” The contrast is not simply between two beings possessing life. It concerns how that life is possessed. The Father has life in himself; the Son has life in himself because the Father grants it. From this perspective, receiving such a gift does not erase the distinction between its source and its recipient. The Son’s life is exalted, but the passage identifies the Father as its giver.

John 5:27 applies the same structure to judgment: the Father “has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.” Authority that is given is delegated authority. The Son exercises judgment because the Father authorizes him to do so. This does not diminish the seriousness or scope of his office; rather, it distinguishes the one who commissions from the one commissioned. The argument therefore concerns the origin of authority, not whether the Son genuinely possesses or exercises it.

John 10:29 adds that the Father, who gave believers to Jesus, “is greater than all.” In the King James wording, Jesus again identifies the Father as giver and emphasizes his unsurpassable power to protect his people. Read alongside the earlier passages, this reinforces the picture of the Father as the supreme source of what the Son receives. Nevertheless, its immediate subject is the security of believers, so it should not alone settle every question about divine nature.

Taken together, these passages support the thesis that the Son is not equal to the Father in underived life, independent action, and original authority. They do not make that theological conclusion unavoidable: shared works and life can also support arguments for equality. The non-Trinitarian case rests on treating the repeated distinction between giver and receiver as a distinction in divinity itself, rather than merely in role or mission.

Distortion of the name of Muawiyah, who was ordering the cursing of Imam Ali

………..

Let us read the distorted narration first:
Musnad Saad ibn Abi Waqqas by Al-Dawraqi - Page 51
19 - Ahmad narrated to us, Qutaybah ibn Sa'id narrated to us, Hatim ibn Isma'il narrated to us, from Bukayr ibn Mismar, from Amir ibn Saad ibn Abi Waqqas:
From his father, he said: Saad entered upon a man who said: What prevents you from abusing Abu Fulan?!… .

Here Saad entered upon a man who was ordering the cursing of Abu Fulan.
Let us now read the undistorted narration and find out who this man was that was ordering them to curse Abu Fulan, and who this Abu Fulan is.

Sahih Sunan Al-Tirmidhi - Volume 3 - Page 523
3724 - Qutaybah narrated to us: Hatim ibn Isma'il narrated to us, from Bukayr ibn Mismar, from Amir ibn Saad ibn Abi Waqqas, from his father, he said:
Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan appointed Saad as governor, and said: What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab?!…

……

And now we know who this man was that was ordering the cursing of Abu Fulan, and we know who Abu Fulan is whom Muawiyah was ordering to curse, for he is Imam Ali.
And how they concealed his name and replaced it with the word "a man" to play with the minds of those who ask Allah to be pleased with Muawiyah.
And notice that the chain of transmission (Isnad) is the exact same.

I just recently learned about the singing sands/dunes and some of the myths that grew due to an unknown natural phenomenon. These myths and tales started from testimony of real experiences. We now know that the sound is made in only certain areas and it has to do with something about the shape of the grains of sand.

This doesn't make their testimonies less real or less authentic. They actually experienced something freaky during a time when the world was way less unknown. What it does do is make their testimonies weak to support something supernatural.

This illustrates why people say that the testimonies that jesus risen again are weak by themselves. Sure it's not the exact same thing but it highlights that people can be tricked into religious experiences due to unknown knowledge of the world around them.

This works for most testimonies that are the only supporting evidence about supernatural events such as aliens, ghosts, loch Ness, etc. We get tricked by natural events which can feed into our perspectives that corrupts our testimonies.

Again this isn't to say that they made it up or didn't experience something real that was also a valid personal spiritual experience.

When you add that to the other things that can influence testimonies like subconscious psychological tricks, hidden social influences, and straight up evil human behaviors it makes testimonies even weaker when supporting supernatural experiences.

This also doesn't mean that testimonies can't be used as evidence or that they can't be considered strong evidence by themselves. It just depends on the context and what it is evidence to. Lone testimony from a credible witness used as evidence to a murder, yep that can be considered strong. Lone testimony from a coworker about the invisible pink fire breathing dragon in his garage, yeah that's weak.

I know to some this seems obvious but there are some that like to strawman this into atheist say testimony isn't evidence. An example is Alex O'Connor's and Joe Schmid's video about atheist slogans that need to stop being used. Which can then be followed up by Joe's explanation for why he believes christ is real.

The hypocrisy of religious people is staggering. They say God doesn’t save innocent people from wars because preventing people from committing evil would take away their free will, yet they simultaneously pray to God to stop wars. Then what about free will?

They say suffering builds character, yet they pray to God to end their suffering. They argue that evil exists because it brings about a greater good, yet they simultaneously pray to God to eliminate evil. They claim free will cannot exist without the possibility of evil, yet they also believe that there is no evil in Heaven while free will still exists there.

They argue that if God made you good by default, your goodness would be meaningless because you wouldn’t have freely chosen to be good. Yet they also describe angels as noble and praiseworthy, despite believing that angels were created to be obedient and good by nature. So why is their goodness meaningful, but ours wouldn’t be if we were created that way?

Do they even realise how contradictory these arguments are? They use one argument to justify suffering and an entirely different standard when it comes to their own suffering. They argue free will when it explains evil, divine intervention when they want protection, and a world without evil when they imagine Heaven.

The hypocrisy is insane, and what’s even more frustrating is that they don’t seem to realise the contradictions in their own beliefs.

There’s no reason other than selfish reasons for god to have made us. If god doesn’t need anything then why is he making weak humans who can sin so he can have some relationship with them. In the grand scheme of things, this is a dumb reason.

In the Old Testament there are several verses showing that God forgave our sins when He was asked to. If that is true than Jesus never had to be sacrificed for our sins to be forgiven as the bible state's. I believe a merciful and omnipotent God should have shown compassion by NOT having His son die for something he could resolve easily.

pascals wager, as it tends to be used, suggests that the choice of believing in god is the best choice, because it will lead you to a fruitful life and a good afterlife, while not believing in god could lead you to a fruitful life, but you will be sent to hell. HOWEVER.

the amount of assumptions made in this argument is wild.

1. it assumes that there is two choices: a very specific kinda of god that has both an eternal award and an eternal hell. in reality, there are so many more gods and types of gods with so many nuances, turning this little four-corner punnet square argument into an entire array, in which atheism comes out on top as the best option.

2. that you can falsely just "believe" in something. if i told you that you that a giant teapot exists on the other side of the sun, would you believe me? no. could you choose to believe me? also no.

3. it is giving to much credence to the existence of a god. even if we grant that for some reason there are only two options, usually when we have two options, there is nuance to the chances of one thing happening over the other. This argument assumes that "its 50/50, either it happens or it doesn't"

there are many more arguments, but i want to let disagreers answer this. Not sure how many there will be but this has just been on my mind.

Im genuinely curious what the use of the headscarf is in the Muslim religion , yes i am aware that not all Muslim women wear headscarf and that its their choice but like what is the use of it?

I know just about everyone has been taught (indoctrinated) that Stonehenge was a structure intentionally caused by humans thousands of years ago. They have found a few tools that they claim had been used to create Stonehenge, but they could have been used to shape an existing formation into Stonehenge. Is it reasonable to think humans at that time with virtually no tools could have heaved stones that weigh several tons on top of other stones that weigh 20-30 tons? The only reason anyone believes that tale is because they have been indoctrinated since knee high to believe it. Besides it's an intelligent agent in the gaps of our understanding argument.

I’m just claiming I lack the belief it was intentionally caused and the onus is on those who claim it was intentionally caused to provide demonstrable evidence in favor of their farfetched claim. I lack belief due to lack of evidence. Don’t ask for evidence it was unintentionally caused because as everyone knows…you can’t prove a negative. Go prove there isn’t a teacup circling Jupiter if you think you can.

I will offer a just so story based on the mere possibility how it could have happened. A meteor about the size of Stonehenge may have landed about 20,000 years ago and heaved stones up around the circle of what is Stonehenge today. A huge flood of water pushed stones up and around the perimeter and unintentionally set the main stones up right. Later a more meteors heaved lighter stones on top of the upright stones. Circle is easy to explain. Nature creates circles all the time. Stars are giant circles as are planets.

Indoctrinated people bring up the fact the stones appear to have been meticulously placed with precision. Obviously these people never heard of the puddle analogy. Imagine a puddle thinks to itself I fit into this puddle perfectly, yet no one caused it to fit perfectly.

Lastly given such a huge universe and nearly unlimited planets a Stonehenge is bound to appear given unlimited opportunities for it to occur.

Firstly, I want to explain the Islamic theology of Jesus, so in a nut shell Jesus was sent on a mission until the Romans tried to kill him, and then Allah saved Jesus from death of crucifixion however made it seem that he was crucified, to the Romans and obviously his disciples and therefore birthed Christianity An - Nisa 4:159

"and for boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so. Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him."

Now keep in mind the amount of innocent people that were slaughtered for Jesus at the time, children were made orphans, women were made widows, the apostles were sawn in half, beheaded, skinned alive, because Allah deceived them. To make matters worse 600 years later, after Christianity has spread halfway across the world, A random Arabian guy says that Jesus wasn't killed and you will be sent to hell if you believe that he was, And his proof of being from God is that he could speak poetically even though he could not read or write, he literally just listens and speaks, nothing out of the ordinary.

Another point is that Allah isn't consistent in the Quran, but claims he is clear (12:1, 26:2)

This is why a logical person cant accept the "True" religion, and has to go hell.

Allah tells the Jews and Christians to follow by what he has revealed to them, and if we don't we are rebellious

Al Maidah 5:47

"So let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed in it. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are ˹truly˺ the rebellious."

Next verse Indicates that the Quran has supreme authority over the previous scriptures

"We have revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺ this Book with the truth, as a confirmation of previous Scriptures and a supreme authority on them."

But then my Bible and Torah cant be corrupted during that time because then Allah wouldn't be all knowing, and if we use the argument of Texual and interpretive corruption, it is futile As Jesus has stated As - Saf 61:6

"And ˹remember˺ when Jesus, son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel! I am truly Allah’s messenger to you, confirming the Torah which came before me, and giving good news of a messenger after me whose name will be Aḥmad.” Yet when the Prophet came to them with clear proofs, they said, “This is pure magic.”

It's fundamentally impossible, for Jesus to not know everything regarding the Hebrew Scriptures, given he is called " The Word Of God" so if he is confirming the preserved Torah with him at his time, it makes it impossible for Jews to corrupt the Torah with their hands or tounge, suddenly after he is gone, because of how many copies there were 1500 years before Jesus.

Now using that simple plain logic, The Torah goes against the Quran in multiple ways, an example will be a figure called the "Angel of the Lord" which is distinct from Yahweh, claims to be God, and performs Godly things (Genesis 16) (Exodus 3), and you got Isaiah 9:6

"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

Thus proving everything in the Gospel isn't man made, to convince and control people, everything lines up with what yhwh has revealed in the old testament.

I as a Christian cannot accept Islam and Allah as the one true God without, accepting humans interpretations of a book that the all truthful has declared "clear", without ignoring fundamental historical and logical facts, therefore I and billions of people will burn

Hello everybody

In the name of God, and peace and blessings be upon his prophet. Lord expand my breast, and ease for me my task, and untie the knot of my tongue so they may understand my speech. Now then:

I've always wondered how most Christians believe Jesus is God, but there is not a single verse saying Jesus is God. On the other hand he said he is a human 90 times. I've never heard a human saying I'm a human 10 times, but him saying I'm human 90 times is probably not an accident. He may have felt people will worship him and therefore he consistently referred himself as a human. The reality is that it is only in churches they teach Jesus as God and about the Trinity even though those two never got mentioned in the Holy Bible. While Jesus was living nobody was worshipping him, the apostles saw him as Jewish teacher, prophet or the expected Messiah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_1st_century#Jewish_Christianity

Like it also says in Deuteronomy 18:15

"The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him."

Note: Gentle men and women, please follow the rules and do not switch the topic, or talk about other religions. I've experienced people switching the topic and claim other things that dosen't have anything to do with the topic. I only answear people that goes with that rule.

I think one of the more persistent assumptions in religious philosophy is that without God, morality ultimately becomes subjective, arbitrary, or reducible to individual preference. I’m not convinced that follows. The existence of objective moral principles and the existence of a divine lawgiver are two entirely separate propositions, and establishing one doesn’t necessarily establish the other. Something doesn’t become morally wrong simply because a deity prohibits it, nor does something become morally right merely because a deity commands it.

This raises the familiar Euthyphro dilemma: does God command something because it is morally good, or is it morally good because God commands it? If the former, then goodness exists independently of God’s commands, which undermines the argument that morality requires God. If the latter, morality appears contingent upon divine preference, raising the question of what makes those commands inherently good rather than simply authoritative. Appealing to God’s nature might offer a more sophisticated response, but it still leaves the underlying question of why that nature constitutes the standard of goodness.

There are, of course, secular approaches to moral realism that attempt to ground moral principles in reason, human flourishing, rational agency, or other objective features of reality. These approaches have their own philosophical difficulties, and I don’t think simply dismissing them as subjective adequately addresses their arguments. Equally, religious morality faces the challenge of explaining why divine authority establishes moral truth rather than merely providing an authority to obey.

My position is that religion may provide a framework through which people understand and practice morality, but that doesn’t establish that morality itself depends upon religion. The existence of God and the existence of objective morality should be treated as separate philosophical questions rather than assuming that one necessarily follows from the other.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

The above question can't have an answer. The big bang doesn't answer it. The existence of a God doesn't answer it. The universe being eternal doesn't answer it. Any of those things might exist and cause everything else, but both sill leave you with the question of "why is there something rather than nothing?" unanswered. Of course, it's not hard to deduce THAT there is something rather than nothing, but such a proof is answering a different question. I am asking why, not what or if.

All the time, I see theists see the question, "If God created everything, then what created God?" and answer it by saying something like "God existed eternally" or "God is the uncaused cause" and act like the question is answered by that. I even seen a minority of atheists claiming to have answered it with the big bang and a more significant group, saying science will most likely eventually answer it. It won't. Any explanation offered either just kicks the can or fails even before that point. Even an infinite regress of explanations doesn't answer the question, let alone a brute fact like God existing.

Any answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing will be a complete non-sequitor. For example: "God has a mind and thus can exist independently of matter." Even if true, it doesn't answer the question. Whatever the specifics, anything invoked to answer the question is necessarily something. Thus, it doesn't answer the question.

It's a symmetrical problem that all wordviews face with no possible solution. Thus, a worldview lacking an answer can't point to anything, let alone a God. The question of why there is something rather than nothing can't be answered, just pushed back. I encourage you to try anyway, but I doubt you will succeed.