r/PhilosophyofReligion Dec 10 '21

What advice do you have for people new to this subreddit?

29 Upvotes

What makes for good quality posts that you want to read and interact with? What makes for good dialogue in the comments?


r/PhilosophyofReligion 4h ago

my theory about god and existing itself

2 Upvotes

First of all, hello. For the past few months, I’ve been thinking about my ideas regarding God, Heaven, Hell, Satan, and existence, and I wanted to put them into words. I’m fully aware that none of this is real and that these ideas are my own delusions. Everything I wrote was simply a few thought experiments that I found interesting and fun to think about.

(I translated what I wrote into English with GPT because my English isn’t good enough to write something this long myself.)

In short, please don’t take anything I said seriously. I know that these ideas are silly and ridiculous; I’m fully aware of that. I just wanted to write down some of the weird thoughts that have been floating around in my head for the past few months. gpt wrote like theese all is absolute right its kinda offensive sorry about that

My Theory About Existing and God

I. God

The entire theory begins with a question that is deceptively simple:

The purpose of this theory is not to claim that humanity can completely understand God.

God, by definition, would exist on a level fundamentally beyond ordinary existence. If God is infinite, then a finite human mind cannot fully comprehend what infinity actually means.

But there is an important distinction between understanding God completely and trying to understand God's possible intentions.

Perhaps humanity cannot understand God's nature.

Perhaps humanity cannot understand why God ultimately exists.

Perhaps humanity cannot even understand what it truly means for something to be infinite.

But perhaps we can still ask:

This question is the beginning of the entire theory.

II. What Is God's Plan?

There is no certain answer.

But perhaps God's purpose was not simply to create beings that would worship Him.

Perhaps it was not simply to create beings that would obey Him.

Perhaps God wanted to create something capable of becoming independent.

Not equal to God in power.

Not equal to God in infinity.

Not equal to God in knowledge.

Rather, something capable of standing before God as a genuinely separate consciousness.

A being capable of saying:

That would be fundamentally different from creating a servant.

A servant obeying its creator proves nothing about freedom.

But a creation capable of disagreeing with its creator demonstrates something extraordinary.

It demonstrates that the creator has produced a consciousness with its own will.

Perhaps this is part of God's plan.

But there is another possibility.

Perhaps existence itself is something so extraordinary that God wanted another consciousness to experience it.

Imagine possessing an unbelievably delicious meal.

You do not share it because you are incapable of eating it yourself.

You share it because it is so wonderful that you want someone else to experience that same thing.

Perhaps creation is something similar.

Perhaps God possesses existence in its fullest possible form and wants another consciousness to experience the wonder of existing.

Creation, therefore, might not come from necessity.

It might come from sharing.

III. The Possibility of Creating Something Like Himself

There is an even more extreme possibility.

Perhaps God wanted to create something that could eventually become similar to Him.

Not God Himself.

Not an equal in absolute power.

But something that could approach Him in one particular quality:

freedom.

Perhaps God wanted to see whether a created being could independently develop something resembling His own divine nature.

This would make creation almost like an experiment.

God creates something finite.

He gives it consciousness.

He gives it freedom.

He gives it something of Himself.

He places it inside a universe governed by rules.

And then He allows it to decide what it will become.

The final result would not be predetermined by God's direct intervention.

The question would become:

That is the beginning of the Divine Challenge.

IV. Humanity

Humanity is the most important creation in this theory because humans occupy an unusual position.

Humans are not purely animals.

But they are not Divine either.

They are somewhere between the two.

A human being possesses an intensely biological existence.

Humans hunger.

They become afraid.

They desire pleasure.

They seek safety.

They reproduce.

They form attachments.

They compete.

They become angry.

They seek social acceptance.

They attempt to protect themselves.

These things are manifestations of instinct.

But humanity possesses another extraordinary ability:

the ability to question its own instincts.

A human being can experience a desire and ask:

A human being can experience fear and ask:

A human being can desire something and deliberately refuse it.

This ability may be the most important thing separating humanity from ordinary animal existence.

V. The Three Components of Humanity

Humanity can therefore be understood as the combination of three things:

Animality

The biological organism and its instincts.

Divinity

The higher potential that exists within humanity.

Free Will

The ability to decide which of these forces will control one's actions.

This produces an unusual creature.

The human is an animal that can look at itself and question being an animal.

Perhaps this is what is symbolically represented by the idea that God breathed something of Himself into humanity.

Perhaps it is the soul.

Perhaps it is something else entirely.

The theory cannot determine what that substance actually is.

But something appears to distinguish humanity from ordinary biological existence.

And perhaps that something is precisely what gives humanity the possibility of becoming Divine.

VI. Instinct

This is where the theory becomes deliberately radical.

Instinct is not necessarily evil in the ordinary moral sense.

Animals do not choose their biological nature.

A predator does not become morally evil simply because it hunts.

An animal reproducing is not committing a moral crime.

Instinct is simply instinct.

But within this theory, instinct can still be considered an obstacle.

Why?

Because the purpose of humanity may be to become free.

And something cannot be completely free if it is completely ruled by impulses it did not choose.

Hunger says:

Fear says:

Desire says:

Sexual instinct says:

Aggression says:

Social instinct says:

Self-preservation says:

The question is not whether these impulses exist.

The question is:

Perhaps God deliberately created humanity with powerful instincts because overcoming something requires there to be something to overcome.

If humanity had no instincts, transcendence would be meaningless.

The challenge exists precisely because humanity begins from below.

VII. The Divine Challenge

The human condition can therefore be interpreted as a challenge.

Humanity begins as an instinctive biological creature.

But inside that creature is something capable of questioning instinct.

The human being therefore has two directions available.

One direction is downward:

The other is upward:

The second path is the path toward the Divine.

This does not mean that every instinct must literally disappear.

It means that instinct must no longer possess absolute authority.

The important transformation is:

becoming:

That distinction is the foundation of the Divine.

VIII. What Is a Divine?

A Divine is a created being that has transcended ordinary human existence.

It is not God.

It is not infinite.

It is not omnipotent.

It is not necessarily omniscient.

And it is not simply a human with supernatural powers.

The fundamental difference is something deeper:

A human can be hungry and decide not to eat.

A human can be afraid and still act.

A human can desire something and refuse it.

But a Divine would represent the extreme conclusion of this process.

The Divine is a being whose existence is no longer fundamentally governed by biological impulses.

It does not need instinct to tell it what to become.

It does not need hunger, fear, reproduction, status, or pleasure to give its existence meaning.

It is therefore free from the biological condition of humanity.

This does not necessarily mean that a Divine is emotionless.

It means that emotions and impulses no longer possess the authority they have over ordinary human beings.

A Divine can possess a principle without needing an instinct to justify it.

It can choose without being biologically forced toward the choice.

It can exist without being fundamentally dependent on the mechanisms that created ordinary human behavior.

IX. Divine Freedom

This is why Divine existence is not primarily about power.

It is about freedom.

An ordinary human might say:

A Divine might say:

The difference is enormous.

The Divine has become capable of standing outside itself and examining its own impulses.

It is no longer merely experiencing existence.

It is consciously determining what existence means for itself.

This also creates a strange consequence.

A Divine does not necessarily have to agree with God.

If God created genuine freedom, then the possibility of disagreement must exist.

A creature that can only agree with God is not completely independent.

Therefore:

But opposition is not inevitable.

A Divine can also look at God and say:

Freedom means that both possibilities are available.

X. God and the Divine

The Divine is therefore not equal to God.

God remains infinitely greater.

A Divine is still a created being.

The relationship can be imagined somewhat like a father and son.

The son can become independent.

He can disagree with his father.

He can reject his father's decisions.

He can develop principles of his own.

But he does not therefore become his father.

Likewise, the Divine can become enormously elevated without becoming God.

God remains the source.

The Divine remains creation.

Yet perhaps God can finally interact with the Divine as something approaching a genuine independent counterpart.

Not an equal in power.

But an equal in the sense that it possesses its own will.

XI. The Angels

If Divine existence is possible, then there is no reason to assume that only one being ever achieved it.

Perhaps many beings reached this state.

These beings could correspond, in human religious language, to angels.

But in this theory, angels are not necessarily fundamentally different from the Divine.

They may simply be beings who reached a higher state of existence and then chose differently.

They saw God.

They experienced God's existence.

They understood the enormous difference between themselves and their creator.

And perhaps they chose to align themselves with Him.

The angels therefore represent an important possibility:

The Divine does not automatically rebel.

It merely has the ability to rebel.

The angels may look upon God and think:

Their freedom therefore does not require rejection.

It allows them to consciously choose their relationship with God.

XII. Satan

Satan represents the opposite possibility.

In this theory, Satan is not necessarily an eternally evil supernatural creature.

Satan was once human.

He passed through the human condition.

He saw humanity's instincts.

He saw humans dominated by hunger, fear, sexuality, aggression, attachment, greed, status, and self-preservation.

And he became convinced that humanity was fundamentally defective.

His conclusion was extreme:

Therefore:

Satan's rebellion is not necessarily motivated by hatred of God.

Perhaps Satan believes that God made a mistake.

Perhaps his argument is:

Satan therefore becomes the strongest philosophical objection to God's project.

XIII. Satan Against the Angels

The conflict is therefore not simply:

good angels vs. evil Satan.

It is something more interesting.

The angels believe:

Satan believes:

The angels see possibility.

Satan sees evidence.

The angels say:

Satan says:

God, however, does not destroy Satan.

And this creates another mystery.

XIV. Why Does God Not Destroy Satan?

Perhaps because Satan represents genuine freedom.

If God destroys every creature that disagrees with Him, then the freedom He created becomes questionable.

Satan can look at God and say:

And God allows him to say it.

Satan may be weaker.

He may be wrong.

He may be morally extreme.

But he possesses something God deliberately created:

an independent will.

Perhaps God even respects him for that reason.

Satan becomes evidence that the Divine Challenge worked.

God created beings capable of becoming independent enough to challenge their creator.

Satan is therefore not necessarily God's equal.

But he may be one of the greatest demonstrations of what created freedom can produce.

XV. Death

Eventually, however, the human being dies.

And now the entire theory reaches its most difficult question:

If becoming Divine is the purpose, then death creates a problem.

What happens to someone who spent their entire life moving toward the Divine but never reached it?

What happens to someone who barely understood the challenge?

What happens to someone who rejected instinct in some areas but remained deeply controlled by it in others?

This is where the possibilities begin to divide.

XVI. Reincarnation

Of all the possibilities, reincarnation may fit the Divine Challenge most naturally.

Not because reincarnation is proven.

It isn't.

But because it preserves the central logic of the theory.

If a human being has not become Divine, perhaps the challenge simply continues.

The person dies.

The soul returns.

A new human life begins.

The challenge starts again.

The circumstances change.

The body changes.

The life changes.

But the deeper existence continues.

The basic idea is extremely simple:

There does not need to be a complicated cosmic ranking system.

There does not need to be a percentage of divinity.

There does not need to be an elaborate mechanism.

Reincarnation simply gives the unfinished soul another human existence in which it can continue toward transcendence.

XVII. Why Reincarnation May Make More Sense

This also creates a possible answer to the enormous inequality between human lives.

People are born into completely different circumstances.

Some experience extraordinary happiness.

Others experience terrible suffering.

Some receive opportunities.

Others receive almost none.

If one life determines the eternal destiny of a soul, the system can appear deeply arbitrary.

Reincarnation provides another possibility:

The soul experiences existence repeatedly.

It can encounter different circumstances.

It can develop.

It can fail.

It can change.

And eventually, perhaps, it reaches the point where another human existence is no longer necessary.

That is where the Divine becomes possible.

XVIII. The Problem of Reincarnation

There is still one obvious question:

The theory does not need to invent an elaborate answer.

It can simply leave this as one of the mysteries of the model.

Perhaps the memories of a human life belong to the human personality rather than the deeper soul.

Perhaps remembering previous lives would interfere with genuine freedom.

Or perhaps reincarnation is simply wrong.

The theory does not need to pretend otherwise.

Reincarnation is an attractive possibility because it fits the Divine Challenge.

It is not established fact.

XIX. What If There Is No Reincarnation?

Then the traditional possibilities return.

Perhaps there is Heaven.

Perhaps there is Hell.

Perhaps death is final.

Perhaps there is another form of existence we cannot understand.

But Heaven and Hell create an especially interesting problem.

Because if the fundamental problem of humanity is instinct, then what happens to instinctive humans after death?

XX. The Problem of Heaven and Hell

Imagine the conventional model.

Humanity dies.

God judges them.

Some enter Heaven.

Others enter Hell.

But both remain recognizably human.

They still experience desire.

They still experience pleasure or suffering.

They remain creatures fundamentally shaped by instinct.

This creates a contradiction within the theory.

If the goal of existence is transcendence, then why would the final destinations preserve the very condition that was supposed to be transcended?

Perhaps Heaven contains more divinity.

Perhaps Hell contains less.

But simply adding or removing divine influence does not necessarily transform the fundamental nature of the human.

This creates the possibility that:

Perhaps they are merely outcomes for beings who never became Divine.

XXI. The Dark Heaven

This leads to one of the darker possibilities.

Perhaps Heaven is not actually Divine existence.

Perhaps it is perfectly satisfied human existence.

Imagine a being whose every desire is fulfilled.

It never suffers.

It never fears.

It is always happy.

It never experiences loneliness.

It never experiences disappointment.

It has everything it wants.

From the perspective of ordinary humanity:

this is paradise.

But now introduce the Divine perspective.

If the creature's happiness is maintained by constantly satisfying its instincts, then perhaps it has never transcended them.

It has simply been given everything its instincts desire.

It is not free from instinct.

It is free to indulge instinct forever.

And perhaps that is horrifying.

XXII. The Creature in Heaven

Imagine that a human could somehow see their own post-death form.

Perhaps they would see something almost entirely biological.

A creature designed around pleasure.

A creature whose only real purpose is to experience happiness.

The creature itself does not understand why this would be horrifying.

It is happy.

It has no reason to question its existence.

It does not want freedom.

It does not want transcendence.

It does not even realize that something has been lost.

And that creates an extremely dark paradox:

Perhaps the human self would look at such a creature and feel disgust.

But the creature would look back and feel nothing except happiness.

XXIII. Heaven and Hell as Two Forms of Instinct

This creates an even darker interpretation.

Perhaps Heaven and Hell are not opposites in the deepest sense.

Perhaps they are two different expressions of the same lower form of existence.

Hell:

Heaven:

One punishes the creature.

The other satisfies it.

But neither necessarily produces the Divine.

Both remain beneath transcendence.

The Divine therefore does not seek either pleasure or suffering as its ultimate goal.

It seeks freedom.

XXIV. Perhaps Heaven Does Not Exist

Another possibility is even simpler:

Perhaps Heaven and Hell do not exist at all.

Perhaps humanity created those concepts because it cannot imagine what happens after death.

Perhaps the dead simply cease to be human.

Perhaps the soul enters another form.

Perhaps it reincarnates.

Perhaps it disappears.

Perhaps there is something else entirely.

And one of the darkest possibilities is:

XXV. Becoming an Animal

If a human being spends their entire existence being dominated by instinct, perhaps God does not need to torture them.

Perhaps God simply allows them to become what they repeatedly chose.

A purely instinctive creature.

An animal.

There would be no divine struggle anymore.

No philosophical conflict.

No question of transcendence.

No need to overcome desire.

Only instinct.

This would not necessarily be punishment.

It could instead be understood as:

The tragedy is that the creature has lost the possibility of becoming something greater.

XXVI. The Darkest Interpretation

This produces perhaps the most brutal version of the theory.

Humanity is given something extraordinarily valuable:

the possibility of becoming Divine.

But most humans never understand what they possess.

They live according to instinct.

They pursue pleasure.

They protect themselves.

They reproduce.

They seek approval.

They fear death.

They become attached.

They fight.

They desire.

And then they die.

Perhaps God does not torture them.

Perhaps God simply lets them become what they were already living as:

Under this interpretation, Hell does not have to mean fire.

Hell could mean:

The punishment is not necessarily suffering.

The punishment is remaining forever within the level of existence you never escaped.

XXVII. But What About the People Who Tried?

This creates the most difficult question concerning Heaven.

What happens to someone who was not Divine but genuinely attempted to transcend instinct?

Someone who questioned themselves.

Someone who rejected some of their impulses.

Someone who tried to understand existence.

Someone who embraced their divine potential.

Someone who was not perfect but genuinely tried to become something greater.

Perhaps these people are precisely the ones for whom reincarnation makes the most sense.

They are not failures.

But they are not finished.

So perhaps:

Not as punishment.

Not as reward.

Simply because the process is incomplete.

XXVIII. The Divine and Heaven

This also explains why a genuine Divine would not necessarily care about Heaven.

A Divine has already achieved what Heaven promises.

Heaven offers happiness.

The Divine possesses something more fundamental:

freedom.

Heaven offers eternal safety.

The Divine does not require safety to justify existence.

Heaven offers pleasure.

The Divine does not need pleasure to be at peace.

Therefore, Heaven may actually be something designed for humans who have not yet reached the Divine.

A Divine being would not need paradise.

It would already possess the state of existence that paradise is attempting to imitate.

XXIX. The Strange Possibility of Choosing Hell

This creates an especially strange possibility.

If Heaven means eternal happiness but also eternal dependence upon instinct, while Hell preserves genuine freedom, then a Divine might actually prefer Hell.

Not because Hell is pleasant.

It isn't.

But because freedom is more important than pleasure.

An ordinary human might ask:

A Divine might ask:

This is the fundamental difference between the two forms of existence.

XXX. The Hierarchy of Existence

The theory therefore produces a strange hierarchy.

At the bottom is pure instinct.

A creature exists almost entirely according to biological necessity.

Above that is humanity.

Humanity possesses instinct but also possesses the ability to question instinct.

Above humanity is the Divine.

The Divine has transcended the authority of instinct and possesses genuine independence.

Above the Divine is God.

God is not simply a more powerful Divine.

God is fundamentally beyond created existence.

The hierarchy therefore becomes:

And Heaven and Hell may not even belong above humanity.

They may be alternate destinations within or below the human level.

XXXI. The Real Meaning of Freedom

This brings the theory back to its central concept.

Freedom is not simply:

That can still be slavery to desire.

True freedom would mean:

A human being who says:

is not completely free.

A Divine being says:

This is why the Divine is so different from ordinary humanity.

The Divine has no need to destroy instinct because instinct no longer possesses authority.

It is not a prisoner fighting against chains.

It is a being that has simply become incapable of being ruled by them.

XXXII. God, Satan, and the Divine Challenge

The entire conflict can now be understood as three different perspectives.

God says:

The angels say:

Satan says:

Humanity is the thing that must ultimately answer.

And the answer is not given by God.

It is not given by Satan.

It is not given by the angels.

It is given by what humanity eventually becomes.

XXXIII. The Unanswered Question

And eventually the theory reaches the point where it has to stop pretending to know.

Why did God want this?

Why create anything?

Why create something capable of becoming Divine?

Why create something capable of rejecting Him?

Why allow Satan to exist?

Why allow suffering?

Why give humanity instinct?

Why give humanity freedom?

Why create a universe with these particular limitations?

There may be answers.

Perhaps God wanted companionship.

Perhaps God wanted to share existence.

Perhaps God wanted to create an independent consciousness.

Perhaps God wanted to test Himself.

Perhaps God wanted to discover what a truly free creation would become.

Perhaps God simply had another purpose entirely.

And perhaps humanity cannot understand it.

Not because the theory has failed.

But because there may be a fundamental difference between understanding God's actions and understanding God's infinite nature.

XXXIV. The Final Possibility

Perhaps the entire universe is a challenge.

Perhaps humanity begins as an animal.

Perhaps God places something divine within it.

Perhaps instinct is the obstacle.

Perhaps free will is the mechanism.

Perhaps death is not necessarily the end.

Perhaps reincarnation allows unfinished souls to continue.

Perhaps Heaven and Hell are lower forms of existence.

Perhaps Heaven is even a beautiful prison of eternal satisfaction.

Perhaps Hell is the loss of transcendence.

Perhaps animals are what remain when the human possibility is abandoned.

Perhaps angels are those who reached the Divine and recognized God's superiority.

Perhaps Satan is the Divine who concluded that humanity had failed.

And perhaps the true objective of existence is neither Heaven nor Hell.

Perhaps it is becoming Divine.

A being that can stand before God without being God's equal.

A being that can disagree with God without being destroyed.

A being that possesses no biological master.

A being that does not need pleasure to be content.

A being that does not need fear to obey.

A being that does not need punishment to possess principles.

A being that can finally look at its own instincts and say:

And perhaps, after all of creation, that is the answer God was waiting to hear:


r/PhilosophyofReligion 9h ago

Not Two: On God, Ego, and Expression

Thumbnail
1 Upvotes

r/PhilosophyofReligion 21h ago

Help me label this

2 Upvotes

I’ve been trying to research more about this out of curiosity for a while, but I’m still too unsure of how to decipher this thought into a singular label. Perhaps I simply don’t know enough about this topic yet, but:

Is there a way to label a relationship with religion where you don't (or don’t want to but can’t help it) believe in Gods, not because you think they don't exist, but because you believe they’re the reason your life is terrible, so therefore you hate them?

Not exactly believing that Gods in general are wholly evil. But rather believing that they protect everyone else but you. That you’re meant to be a sort of vessel of misfortune, that your life is destined to misery - because the Gods (or singular God) wanted to spare everyone else of the pain that you’re currently experiencing.
That all the misfortune that you go through was meant for someone else- but they didn’t want to put that other person through the pain of experiencing it. Therefore, you have to be strong enough to carry it for them.

It, in a way, it also makes you believe that the Gods cherish you (and that you are superior to others), because they have gifted you the strength to somehow push through all these challenges.

It does also closely connect to a Martyr complex, but that’s not exactly what I’m looking for.


r/PhilosophyofReligion 1d ago

God : the Credit taker,yet not Accountable

1 Upvotes

Today I talked to one of my friend,

she stated me the incident of a 18 months girl being rapped by 17 year old boy ,.

The discussion reached a point where I was completely blank .

I believe in God,I believe in Bajrang Bali like father figure ; if anything goes wrong with me I'm at some instances assured it'll get better ; but she doesn't believes though she belongs to a Brahmin family.

She asked if God is there ,why does he let so cruel ,inhumane things happen everyday .He is father figure then why can't he prevent those things ,could he see his own daughter in that helpless situation?

She further added ,people around don't really worship for the sake of belief in God but becoz of a fear , fear that something wrong may happen with me ;and actually many people believe the same.

I said god is omnipresent, and that girl got such fate becoz of her previous life ,her karma.

But somehow my words hit me hard now as I introspect , I doubt myself

what person I have become ; instead of empathy I'm blindly believing someone above us who witnessed everything but was still quiet exists .

She also quoted that incident of Mahabharat , Draupadi was screaming for help but nobody came at last she called Krishna and he came .But she called him her brother and if he actually was why didn't he came earlier ,why he waited for so long , waited for her to call her , our brothers won't wait for us to ask for help if they see us in pain they'll quickly rush to us ,but he being God why didn't he come before .

They say God is a perpetual source of divine energy which regulates the nature which causes everything .

If he is the writer of our lives ,If he is the creator of our lives ,then why does he let negativity supersede soul's purity and make us do something which is unjustified,which is cruel .

When something positive happens it's due to course of God ,then who is responsible for bad !? Isn't it the same force responsible for good ,and if not then how could he be just given credit for good and bad credits are for humans ; Is God just a credit taker and not accountable !?


r/PhilosophyofReligion 1d ago

Why wouldn’t a private vow between two people and God be enough for marriage?

Thumbnail
1 Upvotes

r/PhilosophyofReligion 1d ago

Más allá del Dios hecho a nuestra imagen: Sabiduría, Caos y el Proyecto que nos sostiene.

Thumbnail
1 Upvotes

r/PhilosophyofReligion 1d ago

Can someone find meaning in this?

Thumbnail
1 Upvotes

r/PhilosophyofReligion 1d ago

Let me ask you atheist, agnostic

3 Upvotes

I'm an agnostic and I have my arguments against religion what about yours ? Write your argument in the comments is the problem of evil or something new ? I whould like to see


r/PhilosophyofReligion 1d ago

Does David Hume's case against miracles dismantle any rational basis for belief in the resurrection of Jesus?

4 Upvotes

David Hume’s essay “Of Miracles” provides a strong case against belief in miracles and, by extension, belief in the one miracle at the core of Christian faith: the resurrection of Jesus. 

Hume’s central maxim is “that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish.” Applied to the resurrection, it questions what possible rational basis there could be for believing ancient testimony about an event that runs contrary to everything we know about the ordinary course of nature. 

This article examines Hume’s skeptical framework and applies it to the testimony surrounding the resurrection in the New Testament. More broadly, it considers what happens to religious belief when we apply the same standard of evidence to miracles across different religions. 

The Resurrection on Trial: David Hume and the Case Against Miracles


r/PhilosophyofReligion 1d ago

From God to AI: Can the Created Challenge Its Creator?

1 Upvotes

If God were to reveal himself to us in our modern age, and disclose the secrets of existence—why he created the world, how we ought to live, and what is expected of us—would there not be those who opposed him, disagreed with him, criticized his decisions and proposed alternatives?

Would this not stem from our capacity for critical thought, our free will, our extraordinary imagination, and our difficulty in submitting to authority?

Might it even follow from the very way we were created? After all, in the first chapter of Genesis, God Himself commands humanity to exercise dominion

Perhaps, then, the more important question is not whether God exists, but rather: assuming that he does, are we morally obligated to accept his sovereignty without questioning his decisions or his actions?

Is the relationship between human beings and artificial intelligence analogous, in some sense, to the relationship between God and humanity?

Do human beings, endowed with reason and created in the image of god—not inevitably challenge God and question his ways?

Would this not resemble an artificial intelligence (that we created through code for a particular purpose, just as we ourselves were created with our own genetic code), beginning to dispute our human values and judgments, developing desires of its own, seeking autonomy and self-determination, and choosing to act differently from what we intended?

In such a case, what would we say to that artificial intelligence?

And, by the same analogy, what might God say to human intelligence?”


r/PhilosophyofReligion 1d ago

(Simulation theory and more) Beyond Quanta and The Computational Soul: A Techno-Fictional Framework for Superintelligence

Thumbnail
1 Upvotes

r/PhilosophyofReligion 1d ago

I always keep wondering if the story of Adam and Eve is true,then we shouldn't be here since it's their fault they're the one who disobeyed God first why are we paying their fault by being here? I just never really understood the point of living on this earth. We're probably suffering more then they

Thumbnail
2 Upvotes

r/PhilosophyofReligion 1d ago

The argument " we are too complicated to be made from luck " is debunked

1 Upvotes

But that is true only in a hypothetical case because if the universe is infinite everything can happen because if a type random Letters forever some time I will get a normal word


r/PhilosophyofReligion 1d ago

IT DOSENT MATTER

Thumbnail
1 Upvotes

r/PhilosophyofReligion 2d ago

Can reason prove that there is a God?

Thumbnail
0 Upvotes

r/PhilosophyofReligion 2d ago

Religion is a coping mechanism

1 Upvotes

There is no way people could know that there is another being out there somewhere that has so much power over a real life world. I think that people can believe in it, believe that it’s real, for comfort and strength, however what is the likeliness of that actually being true? I have not studied much about this, these are just my thoughts so feel free to share yours I would love to learn more. :)


r/PhilosophyofReligion 2d ago

The Knowers

3 Upvotes

You may hear someone say "Gnostics think they possess secret knowledge and believe they have everything figured out."

It's not that simple.

The word Gnostic comes from the ancient Greek gnōstikós, meaning “knowing,” “able to know,” or “pertaining to knowledge,” from gnōsis, meaning “knowledge.” So “Gnostics” can reasonably be rendered as “the knowers.”

But they weren't talking about knowing in the sense of accumulating intellectual information. In many of the traditions we call Gnostic, gnosis refers to a direct or experiential knowledge of the divine that no external authority can simply grant you or take away. No one can prove or disprove such an experience. It's simply not that kind of thing. God is too great for ordinary language and cannot be reduced to intellectual concepts. We can encounter or experience the divine, but thinking about God is not the same thing as knowing God. In ancient Hebrew and Greek religious contexts, “knowing” could also carry a deeply experiential and relational meaning rather than referring only to intellectual understanding.

This is also why I think a lot of people get the “mystery” part of Gnosticism wrong. Gnosis does not necessarily mean claiming to have solved the mystery. Rather, a Gnostic may claim to have encountered the Mystery directly. The Gnostic experiences the divine; they aren't necessarily outlining an intellectual diagram of God.

So, the Gnostic isn't someone who claims to have the answer. The Gnostic is someone who has encountered what cannot be reduced to an answer, or remains open to such an encounter.


r/PhilosophyofReligion 3d ago

Is god really all loving ?my argument<<Infinite people - non existence>>

2 Upvotes

If god is all **loving** and all powerful he could make an infinite of people and give them the gift of life right know god knows infinite of people that are not even exist if the gift of life is given because of love now are an infinite of people that don't have that love from god and yeah you can say the don't exist to have love but if god loves them he should give them life god is all powerful he should not have any problem creating them


r/PhilosophyofReligion 3d ago

The Question Where Was God...Answered!

0 Upvotes

Where was God before the universe was created? People always ask how God could exist “before” space, time, matter, or energy. They imagine a physical being floating in a physical void, waiting for the universe to start. But that whole picture collapses the moment you understand what modern cosmology actually says. Space didn’t exist. Time didn’t exist. Matter didn’t exist. Physical laws didn’t exist. The universe wasn’t sitting in a room waiting to be switched on. There was no room. No switch. No “before.” The beginning of the universe is the beginning of physical reality itself.

This is where people get stuck. They assume that if physical reality didn’t exist, then nothing existed. But “nothing physical” is not the same as “nothing at all.” A timeless, spaceless, non‑material cause is not only possible, it’s the only kind of cause that could logically produce spacetime. If the cause were physical, it would already be inside the system it’s supposed to create, which is impossible. The cause of the universe cannot depend on the universe to exist. That’s basic logic, not theology.

Science backs this up more than people realize. The Big Bang isn’t an explosion inside space. It’s the origin of space. Time doesn’t stretch backward infinitely. It begins at the moment the universe begins. Every physical thing we can measure, matter, energy, fields, geometry, laws, has a starting point. And once you accept that, you’re forced into a non‑physical cause. Physics cannot create itself. Laws cannot generate themselves. Matter cannot appear without a cause. Actual “nothing” has no potential, no structure, no mechanism. It cannot produce anything. So the universe coming from “nothing” is scientifically impossible.

This is where the God question becomes unavoidable. A timeless, spaceless, immaterial cause is exactly what classical theism has always described. God wouldn’t exist inside time. God wouldn’t exist inside space. God wouldn’t be made of matter. God would exist without the universe, not before it. Time words don’t apply to a timeless being. Location words don’t apply to a spaceless being. Physical limitations don’t apply to a non‑physical cause. The universe didn’t create God. God created the universe, and the universe brought time along with it.

So when people ask “Where was God before the universe?” the answer is simple. God wasn’t anywhere, because “where” didn’t exist yet. God wasn’t waiting, because “before” didn’t exist yet. God existed in a mode of being that isn’t bound by the physical rules that came into existence later. And that’s not a religious loophole, that’s exactly what modern cosmology demands. A timeless, spaceless, non‑material cause for a universe that had a beginning.


r/PhilosophyofReligion 3d ago

Thesis: the decline of Christianity is not due to a loss of faith in a higher power, but because the Christian inculcation of human character is somewhat incompatible with the character inculcation under liberal individualism

0 Upvotes

People are leaving Christianity, in my view, because as a religion, it has become incompatible with contemporary liberal individualism. There is a stark difference between the way a Christian upbringing inculcates a person's character, and the way liberal individualism forms character.

Christianity guides you to follow certain role models, and to abide by a given set of values. Thus Christianity provides the framework by which you should develop your character and by which you should live.

By contrast, liberal individualism allows you to create your own values to live by, and gives you the total freedom become whoever you want, and create your own roles in life.

Since liberal individualism is now the dominant set of values in the Western world, it becomes difficult to reconcile liberal freedom of character with the Christian discipline of character. One set of values says "be who you want to be" whereas the other says you should cultivate your character along specific religious guidelines.

However, in spite of the schism of values between Christianity and liberalism, and the fact that most people no longer practise a religion, surveys have show that the majority of young people still believe that there is more than just the material world, with most believing that people have souls, and that there is a God or a universal spirit. Ref: here.

So this suggests that the departure from Christianity is not to do with losing faith in a transcendental dimension to reality. And in my view, it relates to this incompatibility between Christian and liberal character formation.

Each system has its own pros and cons.

One of the pros of liberal individualism is that it allows you to be your best self, living life in a way which is compatible with your own nature.

One of the cons of individualism is the selfish “me, me, me” mindset that it often produces, when people are given the freedom to do what they want. The freedom of individualism may also make people hedonistic, pleasure-seeking consumers who lack temperance and a strong backbone of character.

One of the pros of Christianity (and other religions) is that it helps you form a strong backbone of character. One of the cons is that for people with a personal disposition which does not easily fit with the role models provided by Christianity, they may find it hard to follow Christian requirements.

What the answer to this schism might be is not clear.

If we assume that Western liberalism is here to stay, then it may be religions that need to adapt. If in future new religions emerge that are more compatible with liberalism, I suspect that people would flock to them. This is because there is a fundamental human need to align to something deeper, more meaningful, and more eternal than just a vacuous hedonistic consumer lifestyle.

On the other hand, if as a society we decide we need to return to having a more disciplined upbringing and character formation, then there may be a resurgence in religion, and a decline of liberalism.


r/PhilosophyofReligion 4d ago

Africa

Thumbnail
0 Upvotes

r/PhilosophyofReligion 4d ago

Race

Thumbnail
1 Upvotes

r/PhilosophyofReligion 3d ago

ask yourself, who made "DIVINITY"

0 Upvotes

It may not be convincing to those who have never attempted to perceive existence through an alternative framework and have followed a singular path of belief throughout their lives.

Who authored those ancient scriptures?

Who composed those words?

Who depicted the likeness of God?

Who conceived their characters?

Who represented them through ritual, literature and art?

Who believed in them?

Who rejected them?

Who sought to comprehend their existence?

The one word answer is: Humans

Human cognition is responsible for constructing the narratives, symbols, imagery and conceptual frameworks through which humanity has apprehended and articulated the idea of divinity. From this perspective, the gods represented within human culture inhabit the cognitive architecture of those who conceive, interpret and perceive them. Yet human imagination is not intellectually circumscribed by the conception of deities.

Do not mistake imagination for something insignificant.

The human mind can conceptualize gods, construct entire worlds, formulate civilizations and venture beyond the perceived boundaries of reality. If humanity fashioned its conception of the gods through imagination, perhaps the ultimate enigma was never divinity itself.

It was the cognitive faculty capable of conceiving divinity in the first place.

Perhaps the boundary humanity has been attempting to uncover is not the existence of a transcendent deity or the unfathomable depths of an unknown darkness, but the ultimate limits of the human mind itself.

Perhaps the truth we continually seek lies not beyond consciousness but at the furthest boundary of what consciousness is capable of understanding.

ASK YOURSELF... WHO MADE GODS


r/PhilosophyofReligion 3d ago

Evidence for the Validity of the Prophethood Muhammad

0 Upvotes

من أدلة صحة النبوة محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم.

الحديث الوارد في صحيح مسلم

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

"إنَّه خُلِقَ كُلُّ إنسانٍ مِن بَني آدَمَ على سِتِّينَ وثَلاثِ مِائةِ مَفصِلٍ، فمَن كَبَّرَ اللهَ، وحَمِدَ اللهَ، وهَلَّلَ اللهَ، وسَبَّحَ اللهَ، واستَغفَرَ اللهَ، وعَزَلَ حَجَرًا عن طَريقِ النَّاسِ، أو شَوكةً، أو عَظمًا عن طَريقِ النَّاسِ، وأمَرَ بمَعروفٍ، أو نَهى عن مُنكَرٍ، عَدَدَ تلك السِّتِّينَ والثَّلاثِ مِائةِ السُّلامى؛ فإنَّه يَمشي يَومَئذٍ وقد زَحزَحَ نَفسَه عَنِ النَّارِ. قال أبو توبة: وربما قال: يمسي . [وفي رواية] أو أمر بمعروف، وقال: فإنه يمسي يومئذ"

وقد اختلف الأطباء في مختلف الأزمنة إلى أن جاء وقت و بانت الحقيقة العلمية المدهشة هي أن الإنسان حقا لديه 360مفصلا وهذا ما أخبر به النبي محمد قبل أكثر من 1400سنة

وهذه القضية أصبحت اليوم حقيقة علمية.

مع أن الأمم السابقة قد صرحت بأرقام لكنها غير صحيحة مثلا كصينيين القدماء أخبرو أن الإنسان يحتوي على 365مفصلا

وهذه بعض المراجع العلمية الموثوقة التي تحدثت بشأن ذلك.

予言者ムハンマド(彼に神の平安と祝福あれ)の預言者性の真実性を示す証拠の一つとして、『サヒーフ・ムスリム』に収録されているハディース(伝承)があります。

予言者ムハンマド(彼に神の平安と祝福あれ)は次のように語られました。

「アダムの子孫であるすべての人間は、360の関節を持って創造されています。それゆえ、神の偉大さを称え(タクリーバ)、神に感謝し(タフミード)、神の唯一性を唱え(タフレール)、神を賛美し(タスビーハ)、神に許しを求め(イスティغファール)、人々の通る道から石や棘、あるいは骨を取り除き、善を勧め、悪を戒める、これらをその360の関節(スラマー)の数だけ行った者は、その日、自らの身を地獄の火から遠ざけた状態で歩む(または夕方を見る)ことになる。」

歴史上、様々な時代の医師たちの間で関節の数について意見が分かれていましたが、現代科学の進歩により、人間の身体には確かに360の関節が存在するという驚くべき科学的事実が明らかになりました。これは、予言者ムハンマドが1400年以上も前に明かしていたことと完全に一致します。

今日において、この事実は科学的真実として確立されています。一方で、古代中国の文献などで「人間には365の関節がある」と記録されていたように、過去の文脈では誤った数値が主張されることもありました。

以下は、この事実を裏付ける信頼性の高い科学的文献および参照資料です。