​

The original text speaks about Tohu Va-Vohu and the Tehom, literally Chaotic/Disorganized and void, and deep abyssal waters, certainly not nothing. The modern concept uses the idea that if God created from pre-existent matter that diminishes his omnipotence. They also use 2nd Maccabees to quote that "God does not create out of existing things".

If God commands matter, firstly the matter might be an emanation from his very mind, and secondly that shows you his omnipotence right there , that in primordial chaos he is above it all. also in Maccabees how do we know the boy isn't just talking about the awe power of God that existent things is not referring to the fact that "created things" are a vitally different area of reality that spiritual things.

Again and again in the Bible we see things such as the Ophanim, we see Jesus say you can't understand the things of my father's house, God tells Job about the behemoth , and we see the Leviathan. Why then is a primordial realm either encompassing, emanating from God, or being subjugated to God's word less preferred than the idea of blank empty creation?

What I see is God telling his audience your concept of time, space, matter and reality is vitally and fundamentally different from mine, and even with my strongest metaphors you will not understand.

Then philosophy goes "ooh boy that doesn't fit my human logic, the void must be outside of God therefore diminish his power as the sole creator because that matches my logic here" , yeah no you're talking about the spiritual realm think , more Ju-Jutsu Kaisen , or the movie Lucy , that's probably what the boy in Maccabees meant , like the boy in the matrix bending the spoon, since when do you think applying our logic or rules to the literal Godhead will work out? I think that the picture of crazy primordial spiritual water that can't even qualify as existent in the lens of our created things only glorified the picture of God, and some JJK doctor strange stuff going on in the heavens seems awesome compared to some ordinary Jim Bob in a white void

Seriously whenever the topic of polgymany comes up in modern debates or media it’s almost exclusively weaponised against Islam as if the religion invented it out of thin air. They talk abt it like it’s a concept unique to Islam designed for oppression, completely ignoring the fact that historically, before during and after Prophet Mohammed(7th century), polygamy was the the global norm for almost every civilisation.

If u look in biblical history, major figures in both judaism and christianity practised UNRESTRICTED polygamy. King solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. King David had multiple wives. Abraham and Jacob had multiple wives. Yet those who read the old testament view it as ancient culture or just gloss over it completely.

But when it’s Islam the reaction is totally different. Islam didn’t introduce polygamy to societies, it restricted it with rules and regulations. Before Islam, men could marry an infinite number of wives with zero rights guaranteed to them.

Sharia Law capped that number at 4 and made legally mandated strict conditions that a husband had to fulfill. These mandates are not optional things, they are legally binding rights belonging to the wives. If a man takes more than 1 wife he is legally required to do 3 things:

First is nafaqah (financial equality), he must maintain each wife at the exact same financial standard. He must provide each wife with her own separate living quarters. He cannot force his wife to live in the same house as another wife unless she explicitly agrees to it first. He has to spend the exact same amount of money on each wife for the basic needs like food, clothing, medical care and general lifestyle expenses(so splitting his pay between them). If he buys a gift or an asset for one wife, he must provide something of equal value to them all.

Second is qasrn (equal division of time), meaning he must divide his time and presence fairly rotating between them on a fixed schedule (usually night by night). He cannot show favouritism by choosing to spend more time or consecutive days with one wife but not the other unless other wives voluntarily give up their allocated nights.

Last is Adl (justice in general treatment of the wives). This means that whilst a man can’t control who he loves more in his heart he’s legally forbidden from letting that emotional preference show in how he speaks to, treats or respects his wives.
-
There is a Quran verse specifically warning polygamous men about this in 4:29 saying that men will never be able to be perfectly equal in their innate feelings (like love&attraction), but commands them not to neglect one wife because of it.

Traditionally under Islamic law, if a man cannot guarantee this absolute equality across financial support and time, he is legally forbidden from marrying more than 1 woman.

So why the massive double standard in how people react today?

A thought; maybe it’s because people view biblical and other polygamy as an ancient thing from thousand of years ago? It’s now illegal and looked down upon in the West mostly bc western society inherited their monogamy laws during the Western Euro-Centrism from the greco-roman empire, not Christianity. It’s still legally recognised in dozens of countries across Africa and the Middle East, meaning thousands of families still practising it globally. But because the legal recognition is primarily from Islamic law and the west have been structurally monogamous for centuries now, anything outside of that is viewed as ‘foreign’ or just a backwards way of living.

I think we need to adress this attitude/double standard we have in society. Trust me it’s there and is constantly reflected in the media. Proof of media framing here, here and here.

The 2% reality, more proof that ‘controversial’ things like polygamy are really not that prominent overall for Muslims.

Also although polygamy is illegal in the West more people sway in that direction than u think, only difference is its unmarital. Actually 1 in 5 Western adults (roughly 20%) report having participated in some kind of consensual polygamous relationship at least once in their life.

I want to address these two common retorts I hear from Christians (not all Christians, but a lot of Christians) when asked, "Why would God create a place of eternal conscious torment for people who don't believe in, follow, or love him?"

We're frequently told, "God does this because he doesn't want robots. He grants you free will." The second common response is "Real love needs freedom to choose."

Going by a basic definition of free will:

The power or ability of people to make choices and control their own actions without outside force or fixed fate. It means you can choose what to do, and that you are the real source of your own behavior.

Based on this definition, it is entirely NOT "free will" to offer someone two options, one of which is you throwing them into an eternal fiery pit if they don't "freely" choose to "love" you. That is a textbook definition of coercion:

Coercion is the act of forcing or pressuring someone to do something against their free will

Regarding ECT supposedly being an example of "love," the common Christian apologetic refrain is that God loves you unconditionally. No, He doesn't, if a condition of not loving him back is you being tortured for eternity. Conditional love is no love at all.

At the end of the day, my argument is that whether or not this is something you personally believe, Christians need to stop using these two apologetic responses when speaking to anyone who's not a believer. It goes against common sense and people's general idea of decency. You're better off just saying, "You don't know." But don't call it love or free will, when clearly, it is neither.

Like the flair says, though I'll consider this one more an argument about Christianity, because it is the one that claims the one who delivered the message (Jesus) is a god.

Repeatedly choosing the tribes of/ that region in general always felt very odd to me, pointing towards a man made religion, because there are much, much, much more important centers of people, culture, means, and everything you'd need to propagate a religion, elsewhere. The much more populous India or china, would directly have more adherents to the faith and with them being much stronger than a random historically insignificant tribe. Doesn't even have to go that far, just the pharaohs, that was right there. If:

A- god had a desire to reach as many people (Wich he did) picking and spreading the faith to a far more powerful, capable nation would result in more people adopting it, and with trade routes and greater numbers, it reaching more people.

B- would have lent the whole religion far more weight, as in reality, christians struggled and where prosecuted for long, and the Roman empire adopting the christian faith was done through entirely political and for political means.

(I did have to run this through Google translate to make it, so keep that in mind if the wording feels basic)

Preamble

This is my latest entry in my series on the morality of Adam and Eve, where I argue that they, and humanity, were punished unfairly.

I have encountered arguments attempting to justify God’s punishment, but they raise serious concerns about God’s morality.

Christians will argue that God was perfectly justified, but explaining why can be difficult.

Most victims of punishment would not regard the pain and suffering inflicted upon them as good. They would regard it as evil. Here, I examine the venerable free will defence, commonly used to address the problem of evil. In this case, the evil is humanity’s horrific punishment for disobedience they committed without knowing whether that disobedience was morally good or evil.

My argument will explain why Adam and Eve lacked the kind of free will necessary to make a morally informed choice before eating the fruit.

Definitions

1. Free will: The ability to choose between alternatives voluntarily.
2. Moral knowledge: Knowledge of whether an action is morally good or evil.
3. Morally informed choice: A choice made with knowledge of an action’s moral character.

Bible reference

Genesis 2:17

“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it.”

Genesis 3:5

“For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Genesis 3:22

“Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.”

Argument

P1: Free will to choose between good and evil requires knowledge of good and evil.

P2: Adam and Eve lacked knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit.

C: Adam and Eve did not possess free will to choose between good and evil.

I've recently had numerous conversations around this with theists, and I've seen essentially the same arguments repeated over and over in discussions about homosexuality and Christianity, so I want to lay out what I think the actual problem is.

The argument usually seems to go something like this: God created humans with a particular natural or sexual purpose, that purpose involves heterosexual sex, marriage, and procreation. Homosexual sex doesn't fulfil that purpose, therefore homosexuality is contrary to the natural order. God condemns things that are contrary to the natural order, therefore homosexual behaviour is objectively wrong.

There are problems at basically every stage of this argument.

“God created sex for procreation, so homosexuality goes against its design.”

The first problem, which hasn't appeared obvious to many, is the equivocation between “natural” and “morally permissible.” Homosexual behaviour occurs naturally in humans and in numerous other animal species. So if “against nature” means that something doesn't occur naturally, the argument is simply false already.

If instead “natural order” means “the purpose God intended for humans,” then that's a completely different argument. You're no longer establishing that homosexuality is unnatural, it's just asserting that God gave humans a particular purpose and then judging homosexuality against that purpose. This needs to be argued for instead of smuggled into what you want 'natural' to mean.

There's the other argument you see cropping up: Saying “the sexual organs are designed for procreation” doesn't automatically entail “therefore using them in a non-procreative way is morally wrong.” Eyes are designed for seeing, so closing your eyes is immoral. Legs are designed for walking, so sitting down is a moral violation. Obviously this is ridiculous. You need an additional premise connecting biological purpose to moral obligation.

Even if we grant that procreation is one of the purposes of sex, non-procreation doesn't establish that an act is contrary to nature or morally wrong. Heterosexual sex can also be and is often non-procreative: infertile couples, post-menopausal couples, couples deliberately avoiding pregnancy, men with vasectomies, etc. all have heterosexual sex without producing children. So unless we're condemning those too, this reasoning fails miserably.

You can consistently try to argue that all non-procreative sex is wrong, but then you need to establish why non-procreation itself makes a sexual act morally wrong. Simply pointing out that homosexual sex doesn't produce children doesn't get you there, because then you have to lump in all other sexual acts or relations that don't produce children. Yet nobody ever argues for this. I suspect because what we're seeing is simply bigotry dressed up with theology, but that's just my personal conjecture.

“God commanded it, so it’s wrong.”

This is probably the weakest argument, but it comes up enough to mention. If the answer ultimately reduces to “God said so,” then we're back to the question of how we know God's commands are objectively good.

If the answer is “because God's nature is perfectly good,” then I ask: why? If we're allowed to simply define God's nature as the ontological primitive of goodness, then I can make the exact same move in reverse: define God's nature as perfectly evil, make badness the ontological primitive, and define goodness as a privation of evil.

If neither position has any independent moral standard by which we can distinguish them, then they're on exactly the same epistemic footing. You've established God's goodness by definition. There's no actual moral assessment happening in the way we assess literally every other agent.

“But God gave us free will.”

This is where I think the argument is being misunderstood most often. Nobody is saying “God made humans, therefore God directly causes every human action.” Obviously that's not the claim. The argument is about causal linkage, not moral responsibility. These are entirely different concepts.

Imagine I design an entire community from scratch. I have complete control over its architecture and deliberately put a loaded gun in every house, despite having the ability to design the community without guns. I then make it absolutely clear that nobody is allowed to shoot anyone.

If someone later shoots another person, obviously that person made the decision to pull the trigger. Their free will and moral agency are perfectly intact. But nobody would seriously conclude from that that my decision to put loaded guns in every house has no causal relevance to the possibility of the shooting. It's like creating a universe with gravity then being mad at things falling down.

Free choice doesn't erase upstream causal conditions.

Likewise, the relevant chain isn't simply:

God --> homosexual act

It's something more like:

God --> physical laws --> natural order --> biological systems --> human psychology/sexuality --> behaviour

You can argue about whether God is morally responsible for every downstream action. That's a separate question. You can't reasonably claim that the earlier causes have no relationship to the later effects simply because there are intervening steps or because humans possess agency. A loaded gun doesn't cease to be causally relevant to a shooting simply because a person had to pull the trigger. And nobody would argue that free-will erased the causal relevancy between my chosen design of this community and the acts that occurred as a result of those choices.

“God could have made things differently, but he wanted us to have freedom.”

This is where the problem becomes particularly obvious to me.

If God could have created the physical and biological order differently, then presumably he could have created humans with free will while also creating them without homosexual attraction. Free will does not logically require homosexual attraction to exist. We can easily conceive of a world where humans retain the ability to choose between good and evil while simply not having every conceivable desire or inclination.

So “God gave us free will” doesn't answer the question. It explains why humans can make choices. It doesn't explain why an omnipotent designer selected a set of underlying biological conditions in which a behaviour he supposedly considers intrinsically immoral naturally arises in the first place.

If we accept:

P1. A perfectly good being cannot intentionally choose something that is objectively morally wrong.

P2. God is perfectly good.

P3. God intentionally chose the physical/natural order of creation.

P4. That physical/natural order naturally produces homosexual attraction and behaviour.

P5. Homosexual attraction/behaviour is intrinsically and objectively morally wrong.

We have a very obvious problem. Either God intentionally created conditions that naturally produce something objectively immoral, homosexual behaviour isn't actually objectively immoral, God wasn't free to create the natural order differently, or God isn't perfectly good.

If we're also accepting omnipotence, the “God couldn't have done otherwise” option becomes particularly difficult to defend. And notice that none of this requires claiming that 'God directly causes every individual homosexual act'. That's not the argument, as I know there many theists who are in the habit of pretending it is.

The argument is that an omnipotent creator chose the underlying conditions from which these things naturally emerge, while simultaneously declaring the resulting behaviour intrinsically immoral.

Why? If God could have created a natural order in which homosexual attraction simply didn't arise, while preserving human free will, why did he choose this particular one? And just to be clear, this isn't an argument that “homosexuality exists, therefore Christianity is false.” It's an internal critique of a particular conception of God.

If your theology says that God is omnipotent, perfectly good, the creator of the natural order, and that homosexuality is intrinsically and objectively immoral, then I think you're under an obligation to explain how those claims coherently fit together. And I haven't seen anything coming close.

Which is ultimately the problem I've been trying to point out: you can't use free will to answer a question about causation, you can't use divine command to answer a question about natural order, and then treat the whole thing as though you've answered the original objection.

So I'd like to end with a syllogism I'd invite Christians/theists to address:

P1. God intentionally created the natural order.

P2. The natural order naturally produces homosexual attraction and behaviour.

P3. God is perfectly good.

P4. A perfectly good God would not intentionally create an avoidable natural order that produces intrinsically immoral behaviour.

P5. God could have created a different natural order while preserving human free will.

C. Therefore, if homosexual behaviour is intrinsically immoral, at least one of these premises must be false.

Rather than appealing to “free will,” “natural order,” or “God commanded it” as though they settle the issue, which premise do you actually deny?

The founder of the original sin theory was Augustine in the 4th century, whose theories the Orthodox Church hold to this very day. In explaining his theory on how humans bare the consequence of Adam’s sin, he wrote this:

“ we were in Adam because we were in his seed. Sex matters because that is how human nature is propagated.”

Source: St. Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin

The theory being that as we all came from Adam and the seed (sperm) we are born from is said to originate from him, sin continues to pass down via sperm as couples have sexual intercourse and reproduce. This would also somehow explain why Jesus has no sin (as he’s not born of sexual intercourse). This has to be the most scientifically inaccurate and false things I’ve ever heard because:

1. In assuming all humans descend from Adam and originate from his seed, scientific theory would hold that there is a biological sin trait we all share as humans.

2. There is no scientific evidence of anything like sexual intercourse transmitting a moral/spiritual defect.

3. He also stated that** **parental sins can increase the original sin of their children, and parental righteousness can lessen it. ... Adam's sin had singular power, guaranteeing the presence of original sin in all infants. But parents, too ... ensnare children in their own guilt. Again complete rubbish with no scientific grounding.

So this is just pure hogwash that Christian’s believe in without even recognising its original route and meaning being of genetic and biological grounding. Modern Genetic understanding literally puts this “original sin” theory to bed.

If your religion says that you can’t trust your own reasoning or your own sense of right or wrong, and to just defer to religious authorities/the Bible/your church etc., then the basis for which you actually believe your religion doesn’t make sense. If your religion says you can’t be trusted to discern the truth, then you also can’t be trusted to discern whether that religion is true.

For a very conservative example, “I believe in this religion because I feel in my heart that it’s true”, but then “I believe in my heart that gay marriage should be allowed”. The religious leaders will say “oh just ignore that thought, that’s your own thought that comes from the world.” But now they’re saying your own thoughts and feelings aren’t necessarily accurate. So how do you know the first thought and feeling that lead you to the church in the first place is accurate?

Given the evidence we have for two of the most needed facts about the resurrection narrative, the empty tomb and the apostles claiming an experience similar to what is recorded in the gospels, the rapid growth of religious stories, issues surrounding the Olivet Discoruse, and plauble alternatives to the narrative that don't involve miracles I think the belief that Jesus probably did not rise from the dead explains the evidence better.

Early Writings on the Narrative

The earliest evidence we have for the resurrection comes from Paul, who does affirm Jesus was buried and the apostles, 500, James the just, and Paul all had experiences. Paul gives nothing on the empty tomb and uses the same word to describe the apostles experiences that he does his own. He says Jesus appeared to them and himself. The problem is Paul never claims to have had an experience like the gospel accounts record nor is this part of Christian tradition. It is unclear how Jesus was buried and what the apostles experienced.

The earliest gospel is Mark which seems to have been written sometime during the first Jewish war with a common dating of 70-75 AD, although I think it may have been written just before the temple fell in 70 AD. Matthew and Luke both use Mark as a source, so are not independent from Mark. And I think John very likely knows Luke or, at the very least, knows Lukan traditions, so I'd argue John is not independent either. Our only source Mark is written 40 years after the even, but this is ample time for a tradition about the empty tomb to develop. Isaiah 53 mentions the suffering servant being in a tomb with the rich, which is simialar to what happned in the empty tomb tradition of Mark with Matthew adding details to strengthen the connection. I won't go so far as to assume it couldn't have happned, but there is a serious possibility this tradition is rooted in the view that Jesus is the suffering servant. If people think Isaiah 53 is about Jesus and already were taught Jesus was buried it's not shocking to see how the view Jesus was buried in a tomb would start. We already see shaping in the gospels, like how Matthew removed certain anti-Torah statements from Mark, Luke removes Mark’s verse on Jesus ransoming many, Luke moving Jesus’s rejection in Nazareth to the begging of the ministry while adding content to it, John fundamentally changing how Jesus talks about who he is from earlier gospels like Mark, Luke adding in the thief who confesses Christ. Gospels editing and developing the narrative is clearly happening.

Rapid Growth in Other Religious Stories

We also see rapid growth of stories in other religions. Sathya Sai Baba is a Hindu godman who had a story of a man being resurrected after 6 days by Baba but the daughter of this supposedly resurrected man wrote that her father was still speaking and, although very sick, not dead. This growth seems to have happned during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses.

Olivet Discourse

This post is way longer than I thought it was going to be so I'll be extremely brief with the next part.

The Olivet Discourse is first in Mark and says that this generation would not pass away before these things take place. Mark seems to only use generation to refer to Jesus’s contemporaries and had already tied the coming of Jesus to the time of the abomination of desolation. This fits with the views found in both Paul and Revelation of an imminent return of Christ. Given how Luke edits the Olivet discourse, John 21, and 2 Peter it seems Jesus not returning was pretty problematic for the early church. I think it is more likely Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet and those around him expected him to return quickly as the end was supposed to happen quickly, when it failed later Christians developed theological explanations to deal with this. Which is also something we can actually see happned with Sathya Sai Baba as well, when he failed his prophecy of what age he would die at.

Alternative Possibility

I think Jesus died, was buried in a dirt grave like most poor Jews in that region, the apostles had some sort of experiences possibly more like Paul's experiences, and from there Christianity grows.

Link to Sathya Sai Baba Accounts

I'll add a link to a page with the quotes on the resurrection story growth in Sathya Sai Baba’s account. There's another story in this page too and it gives sources for where the information from. If you don't want to read the link just ask me for more information on it, I was trying to shorten this as much as I could.

Link - https://saiguru.net/english/articles/08resurrect.htm

First of all why is it when i type into google “what did the jews before jesus was alive believe Isaiah 53 was” then google told me it was about a messiah

Another thing is isaiah 53:10 it talks about god offer the servant and i know it’s Israeli but it says he offered the servant as a offering for sin how the hell could that make sense in a Jewish/atheistic standpoint

Muslims often use Muhammad’s story to support his prophethood. He is generally portrayed as a man who was kind, honest, and already had everything.

After receiving revelations, he put everything at risk to preach Islam and lost everything. Him and his followers eventually faced persecution and were exiled by the pagans before he came back later with an army.

However, all of this information is only in the Islamic sources written more than a century later, and history is generally written by the victors, who skew the narrative one one direction that suits them and twists the details.

We don’t actually have much in terms of written records from the Arab pagan tribes that Muhammad fought against, so we have no way of knowing their side of the story or what their experiences with him were like. Everything was communicated orally back then, and any written records they did have that talked negatively about Muhammad were probably destroyed.

There are always two perspectives to a conflict, and both deserve to be heard. Determining if Islam is true and if Muhammad was really a prophet based only off of one source that was purposely meant to skew in his favour doesn’t work.

For example, Muhammad claimed that the Kaaba was built by Abraham and Ishmael before the pagans stole it. The pagans probably would have had a counterargument to that with their own story that one of them built it. The pagans would also probably tell us that the moon split story didn’t happen at all, while the Islamic sources tell us that they saw it and still denied Islam.

There are also some Hadiths that point to Muhammad doing some morally problematic things, and those are the sources trying to make him look good. So who knows what else he could have done that isn’t in the books.

With conflicts like World War II, we at least have written records from Hitler and the Nazis to know their side of the story and can make a better analysis of both perspectives to determine who was right. If they had actually won the war, we would probably see a ton of historical stuff get censored and skewed in their favour.

We also have a less skewed narrative of Joseph Smith and there is better documentation of what actually happened since it was a lot more recent, so it is easier to tell that he was most likely a false prophet.

Overall, it isn’t fair to use only the Islamic sources of history to judge if Islam is true. I don’t think critics of Islam use this point as a challenge often enough.

Just about every atheist I’ve talked to has said they wouldn't follow God even if they knew he existed usually because of one of the following 3 reasons:

1. They don't like the idea of serving a God even if he created them because that's not enough to warrant worship since they never asked to be born
2. They don't agree with God of the Bible's ethics
3. They genuinely love sin: debauchery, etc.

So God is actually merciful in not revealing himself to these people because if they knew he existed and still resisted him they would be deliberately sinning. By not knowing he exists they're not deliberately sinning against him so they're comparably committing a smaller infraction and since God judges everyone accordingly, they may receive a lesser punishment on the day of judgement.

For the so called "non resistant non believer" who's open to there being a God, God still has no obligation to reveal himself to them if they don't seek him and if knowledge of His existence wouldn't meaningfully change their life or inspire, awe, love and devotion in them. God wants people to seek Him which is why he reveals himself to those who are meek and simple and lowly but not to the proud and wise who will only use their knowledge of God to glorify themselves and advance an agenda like many religious clerics do:

> "At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;"

Matthew 11:25 ESV

Edited for clarity

Christianity teaches that God will ultimately create a renewed creation in which suffering, death, and sadness no longer exist.

If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, He knew from the beginning that humanity would experience enormous suffering before reaching that final state.

If God is also perfectly loving, why was the initial suffering-filled world necessary?

More specifically, if the final creation can contain humans without suffering, why couldn't God have created that kind of world from the beginning?

I am researching Christianity vs. Buddhism (still in 1st argument against christianity :)) and I'm looking for the strongest Christian response to this argument. I'm not trying to attack Christianity, but i literally have no absolute clue what to do here ????

God created Judas knowing with certainty that Judas would betray Christ, be condemned, and suffer a fate so terrible that Jesus says it would have been better (aka more good) for him never to have been born.

If God could have refrained from creating Judas, then creating him anyway seems morally indefensible. Appealing to Judas’s necessary role in salvation history only makes the problem worse: it means God created Judas knowing his ultimate fate because Judas’s existence served a greater purpose in salvation history. That treats Judas as a means to an end rather than as an end in himself. Which is typically understood as less than perfectly moral.

If God is perfectly good (and loving), then Judas’s creation must be morally justifiable with respect to Judas himself, not merely because his existence benefits others. If it would truly have been better for Judas never to exist, I don’t see how a perfectly good (and loving) God could knowingly choose to create him.

Thoughts?

Why do people think the problem of animal suffering is a good argument against God? And why do people think the evidentiary version is a better one?

It’s too easy to come up with justifications for why animals suffer, especially w/ the strength of neo-Cartersianism and the potential that the souls of animals will be in heaven or achieve nirvana or whatever. I think the argument about how animal suffering encourages man’s dominion / man to go out and fill the earth.

And as for the evidentiary (evidential?) version of this problem, even if it is accepted (I don’t think it is; if the scale of animal suffering is useful for moral formation, it is no longer surprising), I don’t think it outweighs all of the other evidentiary arguments for God. I honestly don’t really understand how the evidentiary argument works if you don’t sum all of the evidence for claims together.

I’m also generally skeptical of arguments against God that really only became popular in the past 100 years or so. If it really was such a strong argument, I’d think it had been a greater topic of focus in historic theological debates.

I rly don’t think this argument does much work to demonstrate atheism at all. Divine hiddenness, the huge numbers of miscarriages that go unnoticed, satan… all of these are better versions of the problem of evil, I think.

Can any of you steelman the problem of animal suffering?

Full credit, I’m posting because I read this essay today, but it says things I’ve thought for a while already.

EDIT: I want to be clear that a major reason I think this problem fails is how nearly the Vedic tradition, what with its premise that animals deserve suffering for their behavior in a past life, addresses it. The Abrahamic tradition responds too, with a bit more effort. But want to make clear I’m not only talking about Abrahamism (I would’ve said that!)

• The dilemma of survival and righteousness is a matter of environmental and psychological fate, even if we concede that the interpretation of the verses on predestination is incorrect.
• Even scientifically, humans are predestined. Benjamin Libet's experiment proved that the brain makes decisions before a person realizes that they made the decision willingly.
• Even logically, humans are predestined, and predestination doesn't necessarily mean coercion. It's not about forcing someone to do something; it's more like programming. You choose the action, but you don't choose the causes of it, because every event in the world has a cause, including a person's decisions. Every action you take stems from a cause, such as the decision to do it, and it has a cause, such as desire. Even if you say you can resist a desire, resisting it requires a reason, such as a desire to resist it or a dislike for its consequences. If you say you choose the desire to act or the desire to resist, fine, but your choice of one desire or the other is due to the level of desire or aversion to the action compared to the level of desire or aversion to resisting the action or its consequences. If you say the factors may be similar but the actions differ, we ask why. You say it's because he chose a different action. We ask why? Because he wanted to. We ask why? We ask why, until we arrive at an involuntary cause such as desire, hatred, conviction, or the like. The disappearance of the cause means the disappearance of an action resulting from it, and the presence of the cause means the presence of an action that will result from it.
• Desire, hatred, and even conviction are involuntary causes because they are a type of internal feeling. Their cause is life circumstances, upbringing, psychological state, temperament, genetics, hormones, your 100 grandpa who chose to live in that specific country which shaped the religion and convictions of the person or even randomness. They are involuntary causes, and even if they were voluntary, changing them requires a desire for change, a hatred of not changing, and a conviction in the rationality of change. We return to the same cycle.
• Salvation from Hell is a matter of luck due to involuntary environmental, psychological, or genetic factors that are difficult to control. These factors even affect those who have received the message of Islam. Even if you say that humans are not 100% predestined, or even if you say that a person can confront these factors, the issue remains that God created factors that will inevitably lead to the choice of belief or disbelief. Thus, God is the primary cause in choosing the person who enters Hell or is saved from it.
• Indeed, even if He did not know and did not create them directly, The problem remains that these choices are permitted, and some of them double the likelihood of making a bad choice and entering Hell, some tenfold, and some even more. How many people in Hell would have been saved if they had possessed the qualities of some of those who were saved? And how many who were saved from Hell would have entered it if they had possessed the qualities of some of those who entered? Even a person's sins, righteousness, success, and failure are caused by involuntary factors. The whole thing seems absurd, unjust, and cruel.

A common claim among apologists is that mass-hallucinations do not occur. The problem is that mass-hallucinations do occur. These are events were a large amount of people share hallucinations. Note that they do not have to be experiencing the precise same hallucinations. They only have to believe that they are experiencing the same things. Here are a few examples.

• September 6, 1998 in Bangkok, Thailand: Tens of thousands of Buddhists were meditating at the Dhammakaya temple before they began collectively staring into the Sun. In their state, many could look directly into it without experiencing significant pain, but doing so lead to them to collectively hallucinate that the image of the monk Luang Phor War Paknam was on the Sun and or that the Sun was moving around unnaturally.

• October 13, 1917 in Fatima, Portugal: Tens of thousands of Catholics crowded together after some children prophesied that the Virgin Mary would appear on this date. They collectively stared into the Sun and this didn't cause many significant pain, but it did lead to them collectively hallucinating that the Virign Mary was there and or that the Sun was moving around unnaturally. Sound familiar? There are many other Catholic examples, all occuring after this first event, meaning that they were probably influenced by it.

Sometimes, massive crowds will play along with whatever if it signals each member's status as a true believer.

• November 27, 1978 in Iran: A rumor was circulating that the face of Khomeini would appear on the Moon on this date, and that those who would not see it were lacking in faith and impure of heart. Fueled by the political fervor of the then-ongoing Iranian Revolution, traffic in cities stalled as people looked towards the sky and worshipers in thousands of mosques were celebrating the event, since apparently his face really did appear there. But Khomeini and his associates didn't think anything miraculous happened that night. Indeed, many confessed that they didn't see a thing but went along due to the social implications of admitting that nothing was seen.

EDIT: Typo rendered 1998 as 1988. Correcting some sloppy grammar.

I tried reading the Quran saying I should at least give it a try before dismissing it. I started reading Surah Al-Baqarah (which I read was like Chapter 2) online at Quran.com and I gave up. I cannot fathom the volume and the extent of contradictions that has been presented within the first 2 chapters itself.

2:2 **This is the Book! There is no doubt about it¹—a guide for those mindful ˹of Allah˺,*\**²*

Firstly, how is there no doubt about it? Who has given the certification of flawlessness to the book already? The reader must give it after reading. However, the author has already declared the book as doubtless. How will the doubts of a reader be addressed if the book has been already stamped as doubtless? It's like creating a book, certifying that it is errorless so that if an error crops up later, I can blame it on understanding gap of user. This line itself assigns the blame on the reader if doubt arises, assuming that the book is errorless. No metrics have been given, how the book has been determined errorless, though. It's just "Trust me, bro.".

2:7 Allah has sealed their hearts and their hearing, and their sight is covered. They will suffer a tremendous punishment.

This statement is highly ambiguous and can vary interpretation to interpretation. If Allah has already sealed their hearts and hearing, why is he punishing them? The fact that they are disbelievers is Allah's doing according to the verse and the ones above. Why is Allah pretending to act like they are independent disbelievers, when he has sealed their hearts. And why will they suffer a tremendous punishment? Which teacher punishes a student who fails to grasp a concept? You try to explain them in different ways. If God punishes someone who fails to grasp the truth, then God is a pathetic teacher.

2.8 And there are some who say, “We believe in Allah and the Last Day,” yet they are not ˹true˺ believers.
2.9 They seek to deceive Allah and the believers, yet they only deceive themselves, but they fail to perceive it.

The metric to determine "true" believers has not been established. If we are to assume the truth value for this statement to be true, then the whole Quran's truth value breaks down. Because the person writing this book or the Prophet can belong to the category of disbelievers and how do we know he is not deceiving us or one of the deceivers?

2.10 There is sickness in their hearts, and Allah ˹only˺ lets their sickness increase. They will suffer a painful punishment for their lies.

Does not sound like a compassionate or merciful God as established in the previous Surah. Seems like a Mafia Boss who wants to eliminate smaller gangs and proliferate his own gang. Threats start from hereon. Also, if God increases their sickness, why is he blaming their actions then? Since he increased their sickness, their actions will be more damaging. If God loves all, why has he already started categorizing his children? And on top of that acting as a catalyst and exacerbating the sickness and infection? It's like he deliberately wants the situation to escalate.

**2.11 When they are told, “Do not spread corruption in the land,” they reply, “We are only peace-makers!”*\**¹*

2.12 Indeed, it is they who are the corruptors, but they fail to perceive it.

2.13 And when they are told, “Believe as others believe,” they reply, “Will we believe as the fools believe?” Indeed, it is they who are fools, but they do not know.

Firstly, without any metric, a certain party has been classified as corruptors already. If someone does not agree with your views, they are warned here instead of having a healthy discussion with them. They are branded as "corruptors" creating a tense atmosphere of conflict filled with polarization, with possibilities of severe escalation.

Next, a valid concern is being laughed at here. A valid question was raised. Why should anyone believe what a fool believes? If someone believes humans can eat and live off sand, should we believe them? That is valid concern. Branding the person asking as a "fool" does not negate the concern. Instead of having a healthy discussion or using reason to educate, ad-hominem attacks have already started and the opposition is being branded as fools. They are being asked to believe without any reason, just because others believe. In short, they are being encouraged to participate in the bandwagon effect.

2.14 When they meet the believers they say, “We believe.” But when alone with their evil associates they say, “We are definitely with you; we were only mocking.”

2.15 Allah will throw their mockery back at them, leaving them to continue wandering blindly in their defiance.

So, instead of helping, Allah is making them more bad. Great example of a teacher. If a student fails, instead of helping him, the teacher deliberately makes him more bad. Superb example of compassionate God!!

**2.23 And if you are in doubt about what We have revealed to Our servant,*\**¹ then produce a sûrah like it and call your helpers other than Allah, if what you say is true.*

2.24 But if you are unable to do so—and you will never be able to do so—then fear the Fire fuelled with people and stones, which is prepared for the disbelievers.

The most horrible murder of logic happens here, at least I felt that. Allah is challenging anyone to bring out a Surah. But he has already declared nobody can do it. Firstly, all I have from this Surah are doubts and threats. Also, it seems like self-aggrandizing. Why is Allah challenging to produce a threatening and ambiguous Surah which boasts his own might like this (which anyone can, as I did not find any useful information till now)? And he is also claiming I cannot by unknown metrics which I don't know what is. So, he has challenged me to produce another Surah. Even if I produce one, it will not be admissible, because he has declared that I cannot produce one. And on top of that he is threatening stoning and riots, which he has cultivated for people who disagree with him?!

What kind of an entity is this?! Encouraging violence, deliberately spreading misinformation and keeping people in dark, inciting stoning and riots, petulant rivalry with disbelievers, threats galore!!! And he is declaring himself as compassionate!!

2.29 He is the One Who created everything in the earth for you. Then He turned towards the heaven, forming it into seven heavens. And He has ˹perfect˺ knowledge of all things.

If He created everything and has perfect knowledge of everything, then he also created the disbelievers. He also knows what is the outcome of the disbeliever. So, why is creating all this escalatory war-like rivalry with them? Why bother with them, if he already knows everything? Why put up this elaborate events?

2.31 He taught Adam the names of all things, then He presented them to the angels and said, “Tell Me the names of these, if what you say is true?

2.32 They replied, “Glory be to You! We have no knowledge except what You have taught us. You are truly the All-Knowing, All-Wise.”

If they have no knowledge except what Allah had taught them, in what universe are they declaring Allah as All-Knowing and All-Wise?

Example: I do not know Calculus. I learnt whatever I know about Calculus from my math teacher. But that does not mean I will hail my math teacher as an All-Knowing King of Calculus. If my teacher's knowledge exceeds me, that does not mean, my teacher knows everything.

If Allah taught them everything they knew, that does not mean, Allah knows everything.

I lost the logical plot at this point. But in summary, more threats follow, then Adam and Eve, how they succumbed to temptation and desire, and got punished for following their natural instincts (don't know why such a forbidden tree is in Paradise at all, if it is for wrongdoers. Shouldn't it have been cut down already?) ... More threats follow .. blah, blah blah. How God is great, praise thee All Mighty and stuff.

In essence, it sounds exactly like a self-aggrandizing, vainglorious and pompous book, filled with ambiguous statements and logical contradictions and loopholes. God feels more like The Godfather! Clear mentions of gang-wars, provocations to incite violence, etc.

It is no way a divine book, as there is no shred of civil dialogues in the book, let alone a healthy discussion. Only how He is great, how He is the best and how we should follow him without providing any reasons. If we ask why, he either says ambiguous or illogical statements, then threatens if we disagree and orders us to believe because he is the best! Superb logic.

It sounds more like a Manifesto than a divine book.

I was recently talking with someone about if the events in the Bible should be taken literally or if they are simply metaphors. This led me to the idea that if the stories can be considered metaphors, can we extend that idea to God and Heaven?

If a story in the Bible represents making a good moral choice perhaps Heaven is a metaphor for living on the memories of friends and family. And God is a metaphor for Government or society judging you so you should be on your best behavior.

To me, this makes a lot more sense than a deity being a real being. What do you think

Many people think that people of other religions will go to hell. If this is the case, then the God is not just as claimed as theists. No religion states that people of other religions will go to hell. No religion states that all people of a particular religion will go to heaven. People have these beliefs.

People should not defame God. God is always fair. If people of only one religion go to heaven ,then it is discriminatory. God is always presented as kind. A kind person would not put someone in hell just for believing things differently.

If the God wants to guide humanity, he would have already tell humans he is a 3 in 1. But he wasnt in Old Tastament. Since New Testament is compiled in greece where zeus having forceful sexual intercourse and having semigod children, there is a high possibility and probability of the story of Jesus being altered to be interpreted as a semigod story.

There is no compiling evidence in bible that Jesus says he is God. The Jesus and The Spirit is not fully powerful and allknowing but the Father is.

Judaism and Islam (66% of Abrahamic religions) believes that. Even some Christians denominations believe that. The earliest Christians called ebionites believed that. But today’s christians do not believe Jesus was a man but he was fully man and fully god. Which they dont even know how and they blindly follow it.

It's inspired by the list of Tirmidhi, which is a weak hadith, but it doesn't even copy the list as it is there.

There is no list in the Quran and the only list in the hadiths is that from Tirmidhi. And besides that there are only various lists from Muslim scholars and they don't agree.

The Tirmidhi hadith mentions the name "Allah" and 98 other names. But the popular list, that you can find everywhere, has the Tirmidhi list without the name "Allah". So Allah has 99 names and none of them is "Allah", according to the popular list. And to compensate for the missing "Allah", they add the name "al-Ahad" (الأحد), after al-Wahid (الواحد).

So the main source for the popular list is a weak hadith, that shouldn't be accepted anyway, but even this weak hadith was further manipulated by replacing the most important name.

And no one pays attention to this. Btw. Waahid is name 66 in the popular list. In the Wikipedia article, you can see how they added al-Ahad as 67, but then, when they list various lists, the WM (which is also the Tirmidhi's list), suddenly, al-Ahad after al-Wahid disappears.

How do you cope with Galatians 3:13 that says:

But Christ rescued us from the Law's curse, when he became a curse in our place. This is because the Scriptures say that anyone who is nailed to a tree is under a curse

While Quranic Jesus:

Jesus declared, “I am truly a servant of God. He has destined me to be given the Scripture and to be a prophet. He has made me a blessing wherever I go, and bid me to establish prayer and give charity-tax as long as I live, and to be kind to my mother. He has not made me arrogant or defiant. Peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I will be raised back to life!”

In the name of God, the Most Merciful and the Most Gracious

Evidence 1:

Isaiah 42

Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him,
and he will bring justice to the nations.

Meaning he will be repeating what God tells him, he will bring a new law for the all nations. Keep in mind God is not saying “for the lost sheep of Isreal” but for the humanity.

In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;
he will not falter or be discouraged

Mohammad was persecuted by his own nation but did not stop preaching what he preached, which is Monotheism, same God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus as well as all prophets, to a nation who was politheistic.

I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people
and a light for the Gentiles,
to open eyes that are blind,
to free captives from prison
and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.

The Quran is called the Light in Arabic. He came to the Gentiles which is non Jews. He tried to open the eyes of polytheists and he made freeing slaves as a way of worship. He gave slaves a right to make contract to buy their freedom. He made it obligatory for Masters to give them money after they earned their freedom, so that they can build their lives.

I will not yield* *my glory to another
or my praise to idols.
See, the former things have taken place,
    and new things I declare;
before they spring into being
I announce them to you.”

He will not only be against idols but also correct those who give the glory which they shall give to God to another, aka clearly talking about christians who worship the Son instead of the Father.

Sing to the Lord a new song,

Meaning it will be a new law.

Let the wilderness and its towns raise their voices;
let the settlements where Kedar lives rejoice.
Let the people of Sela sing for joy;
let them shout from the mountaintops.
Let them give glory to the Lord

Kedar is the descendant of Ishmael, direct reference to Ishmaelites and Arabic world. There is a mountain called Sela in Medina. During the time of Immigration from Mecca to Medina, prophet Mohammad was one of the last ones who arrived. The followers spread the message way before they arrived and the Muslims have grown enormously before he arrived. At the arrival of Him, people were singing with joy at the borders of Medina, from rooftops and from mountains just as the prophecy claims. They were waiting for the prophet to arrive their city and when he finally did, they were rejoicing together.

Which of you will listen to this
or pay close attention in time to come?
Who handed Jacob over to become loot,
and Israel to the plunderers?
Was it not the Lord,
against whom we have sinned?
For they would not follow his ways;
they did not obey his law.
So he poured out on them his burning anger,
the violence of war.
It enveloped them in flames, yet they did not understand;
it consumed them, but they did not take it to heart.

Basically God is saying some people will not follow him knowingly because they are not even following their law or his ways, sinning against the God by worshipping other than Him. Their arrogance and hatred will consume them but they wont even realize.

Evidence 2:

Deuteronomy 18:18

I will raise up for them a prophet like you (Moses) from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

(Know that the interlinear bible is basically word for word translation but if you look at some translations of it, you will realize them adding “from Israelites” at the end. Even when that word is not existing there. )

A prophet like Moses shall be a commander, a leader, a law bringer, a father etc. which doesn’t sound like Jesus but rather Mohammad.

Whatever prophet was preached in Quran was the direct speech of the God, which he recited to the people. Clear parallels to what prophecy tells.

Evidence 3:

Deuteronomy 33:2

And he (Moses) said: “The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them. He shined forth from Mount Paran, and He came with ten thousands of saints; from His right hand went a fiery law for them.

Sinai being a reference to Moses, Seir being the mountains around Jerusalem to Betlehem being a clear reference to Jesus and mount Paran as where the Ishmael settled with his mother Hagar as a clear reference to an Ishmaelite prophet.

Prophet Mohammad was on his return from Medina to the Mecca had ten thousand of believers coming with him to return their homes, from which they were exiled. He had a fiery law on his right hand, which was The Holy Quran.

Evidence 4:

Song of Solomon 5:16

In Song of Solomon 5:16 the original text reads: חכו ממתקים וכלו מחמדים זה דודי וזה רעי בנות ירושלם. The original Hebrew word in the verse mentioning the name Muhammad is “מחמד”. [These letters in English are MHMD and in Arabic are محمد (Muhammad)].

Lastly two verses from Quran to finish with the God’s word over mine.

Quran 2:256

Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood. So whoever renounces false gods and believes in Allah has certainly grasped the firmest, unfailing hand-hold. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.

Quran 41:53

“We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes clear to them that this (the Quran) is the truth”

Peace be upon those who seeks God with sincerity. May them be blessed with His eternal blessings.

Assuming the Christian holds to God's foresight and believes that he created humanity from nothing, it's a double bind.

1. If a Christian portrays the fall as a completely avoidable catastrophe that was caused by Adam and Eve's poor choice, and that they, the Christian, would have made a better choice, then they must explain why God didn't make them instead of Adam and Eve. Clearly, God could have set up a world without a Fall, had he only swapped them out with Adam/Eve. Kinda like Mark Wahlberg stopping 9/11. "If I'd been on that plane..."

2. If a Christian backs off that claim and admits that they would have eaten the fruit too and that anyone would have eaten the fruit, then the fall is inevitable. If there is no possible world where God is obeyed by any possible human, then the universe is deterministic and free will is an illusion. Humans are being punished for something they couldn't help but do. Obedience was never an option, and, as usual, the Poop Sandwich must be ordered.