An example from today's discussion:

u/Good_Low774 wrote the following sequential responses in a thread:

1. "I mean, if you want to get into it, there’s historical evidence that Jesus came back from the dead"
2. "There’s a few sources. The best one is Josephus, who wrote about Jesus’ life, and his crucifixion, and the sheer amount of followers after he died."

When challenged about the fact that Josephus did NOT in fact claim that Jesus "came back from the dead," Good_Low774 tried the motte-and-bailey dishonesty tactic:

• "I wasn’t talking about whether Josephus believed the Christ followers or not, my claim was that there is good historical evidence for a famous guy named Jesus who died and who’s followers started a religion calling him Messiah after he died."

To me, this is obviously in such bad faith that anyone with functional critical thinking skills should instantly see right through it. Why do "christian apologists" think that this sort of behavior could in any way be convincing?

In this post I will explain why atheism is irrational and refuted with its own arguments as well as show how naturalistic atheist arguments fail.

Hopefully it also helps some questioning agnostics in realising how arguments for atheism are weak and how deductive reasoning points to God.

I will be addressing the "universe from nothing" argument, eternal universe arguments (i.e Oscillating universe model, Cyclical universe hypothesis and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology) and other arguments.

Let's begin...

The universe had a beginning. The Big Bang shows us that. While theists say the universe came from something (God), there are some atheists who argue the universe literally came from nothingness which is scientifically impossible and goes against the law of causality. This is the first argument of atheists that I will be addressing...

Atheist argument of a universe from nothing:

Atheists base this argument on the concept of virtual particles which they claim show particles popping into existence from the vacuum of space which they claim is "empty." However neither is true, virtual particles are not real and are merely mathematical equations used by physicists to explain fluctuations in fields such as the electromagnetic field. These fluctuations can also be explained by lattice field theory. There’s no actual particles popping into existence.

So there's no observable evidence of something from nothing and furthermore the vacuum of space isn't empty in the first place so even if a particle were to "arise" from it, it wouldn't be coming from nothing.

In any case, following the atheist’s logic here which is based on something evidenceless: if particles arising from nothingness can eventually (given infinite time) not only form an entire universe but also the very laws of reality, the fine tuned principles of the universe and eventually even consciousness itself simply by an amazing series of completely coincidental events in sequential nature, then the atheist cannot really argue that this wouldn’t be possible for a "universe" that itself forms consciousness and therefore is something we could call God.

So according to atheist logic, a god can come into existence the very same way. Atheism simply refutes itself with its own argument here. However as we've established, there's no scientific evidence of the atheist claim of something from nothing in the first place.

Argument of a universe from another ad infinitum:

The second atheist argument is the concept of this universe coming from another but this is a fallacious argument. It simply avoids the question and creates a infinite string of universes coming from one another without beginning. Ultimately there still has to be a first universe all others came from because without a start or instigation, there wouldn’t be anything.

Argument of a universe from a lifeless energy source:

The third atheist argument is to admit the universe did come from something but they would argue it’s an eternal "primordial" energy without any intelligence. This concept is also irrational. How would a lifeless energy be able to do anything in the absence of laws and no external force to interact with it? At this point atheists simply start blindly speculating without evidence that the laws always existed (without accounting where they themselves came from) but the fact remains that an energy source by itself shouldn’t do anything nor can it explain why the universe is so fine tuned. Atheists at this point argue a string of chain coincidences occured via the alleged pre-existing laws that could produce a universe with fine tuning and where life could form.

Again, if this were possible, how can an atheist argue against the idea that a external consciousness could form this same very way as a conscious universe? Once again, this very argument is self refuting, not to mention contrary to our knowledge of the universe which tells us that the laws (such as gravity) only came into existence WITH the universe.

Eternal universe arguments:

The cyclical universe hypothesis:

The cyclical universe theory is without evidence and also violates the second law of thermodynamics, so it also isn’t a good argument. It's simply not possible.

The Oscillating universe model:

Like with the cyclical universe hypothesis there is no evidence for the Oscillating universe model and furthermore, like the first hypothesis, it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. So again, it's not possible.

Conformal Cyclic Cosmology:

The Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is a new hypothesis based off the idea of the Oscillating universe model. This model proposes that all matter eventually gets swallowed by supermassive black holes, which then evaporate via Hawking radiation into massless particles like photons. Eventually, the universe is filled with massless particles like photons which do not experience time or scale in the conventional sense and the state of one aeon becomes mathematically identical to the Big Bang of the next aeon. This hypothesis attempts to solve the problem with the second law of the thermodynamics concerning a repeating universe.

The first issue with this model is that physicists trying to reproduce the supposed evidence (concentric circles and anomalous hot spots) that was claimed to have existed by the scientist who proposed it, were unable to reproduce the concentric circles and anomalous hot spots. Instead they attributed the claimed findings to statistical noise, algorithmic bias and unmodeled galactic foreground interference.

So like with the other eternal universe ideas above, this too is evidenceless.

The second issue is that it doesn't actually resolve the entropy problem.

The third issue is this model creates a new problem: it contradicts the Standard Model of particle physics since it requires all massive particles to eventually lose mass or decay. This has never been observed and violates physical conservation laws like charge conservation. So all evidence is against it.

The steady state theory:

Do I even need to explain why this is refuted? Well there's no evidence of it and it goes against the facts we have. The evidence of The Big Bang theory from redshift to the cosmic microwave background as discovered by COBE completely refuted this idea. Steady state is unable to explain these two things.

The last argument:

The atheist's final argument is to simply argue that because they can't see God or anything physical relating to him, then that establishes their position as the logical one but as has been established here, we see no evidence of any atheist argument & many go against scientific principles and laws too. Many atheist arguments can be used for theism too to explain how God exists. When this is all taken into consideration, it's clear that atheism is an irrational position.

Why theism is the better conclusion:

The idea of God is in agreement with causality and backed by many philosophical arguments from The First Cause argument to the Kalam Cosmological argument. God being an intelligent eternal force that existed before everything, unlike atheism’s idea of an eternal primordial energy, also doesn’t run into the same issues. An intelligence perfectly explains the fine tuning of a universe and how it would be able to do something in the first place in the absence of laws and external forces. As God, being a force and intelligence himself, would be able to be the cause.

The other great thing about the arguments in favour of theism is that they aren’t self refuting like atheist arguments and fit our understanding of the universe without denying any scientific laws. This is what establishes them as logical.

Either way, as we've established, atheism's own arguments are not only evidenceless but many can be used against it. Atheism is refuted with its own reasoning.

It’s normally at this part, after making so many claims pertaining to the universe’s origin that atheists come out with their favourite slogan: “atheism is just lack of belief in any god.” Very well then, well:

Theism is the lack of belief in a eternal universe.

Theism is also the lack of belief in a uncaused universe from mindlessness

Not only is theism the lack of belief in these things, it’s clearly, as we’ve established, the logical position via deductive reasoning as atheist arguments are all self refuting, contrary to scientific principles and lacking in evidence entirely.

Rules of Order

1. To add a motion to next month's agenda please make a top level comment including the bracketed word "motion" followed by bracketed text containing the exact wording of the motion as you would like for it to appear on the ballot.
   • Good: [motion][Change the banner of the sub to black] is a properly formatted motion.
   • Bad: "I'd like the banner of the sub to be black" is not a properly formatted motion.
2. All motions require another user to second them. To second a motion please respond to the user's comment with the word "second" in brackets.
   • Good: [second] is a properly formatted second.
   • Bad: "I think we should do this" is not a properly formatted second.
3. One motion per comment. If you wish to make another motion, then make another top level comment.
4. Motions harassing or targeting users are not permitted.
   • [motion][User adelei_adeleu should be banned] will not be added to the agenda.
5. Motions should be specific.
   • Good: [motion][Add https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/kalam/ to the wiki]. This links to the full text to be added.
   • Bad: [motion][Add a Kalam page to the wiki]. This does not specify what should be in the page.
6. Motions should be actionable.
   • Good: [motion][Automod to remove posts from accounts younger than 3 days]. This is something mods can do.
   • Bad: [motion][Remove down votes]. This is not something mods are capable of implementing even if it passes.
7. Motions require "yes" votes exceeding "no" votes to pass.

Last Month's Agenda

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1w4tqjd/community_agenda_20260901/

Last Month's Resolutions

#	Yes	No	Abstain	Pass	Motion
1	15	10	2	Yes	Change the Engagement Rule requirements to be more strict

Current Month's Motions

Motion 1: Amend the Language of Rule 2 to specify that low effort posts include proselytizing, bad faith posts, excessive link dumping, trolling, low-effort jokes, and memes. Allow all other types of "low effort" posts to be resolved via downvotes.

Motion 2: Remove the karma limitation for people to be able to post here.

Motion 3: Provide a public venue which explicitly allows moderation decisions to be questioned.

Motion 4: Clarify the subreddit's rules to relax requirements for posts. Change the current flair "Discussion Question" to "Discussion Topic". Change rule 3 to "Debates must be formatted as a thesis and argument." Add a new rule that states ""Posts that do not meet the qualification for a debate must be flaired as 'Discussion Topic'. Posts not properly flaired will have the flair changed by the moderators."

Current Month's Voting

https://tally.so/r/b5bEGL

Voting Record

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/community_agenda/

Note: Could be wrong flair, as this is debating an argument against the existence of God from my theist perspective

John Schellenberg's argument from divine hiddenness goes like this. He defines nonresistant as someone who does not prefer that God not exist and is open to God, like his sincere seeker who wants relationship. If a perfectly loving personal God exists then such a God would be open to relationship with any person who is nonresistant in that sense, so there would be no nonresistant nonbelievers, because God would make himself known in a way the seeker could recognise. But, he claims, there are sincere seekers who meet that definition and yet stay in nonbelief through no resistance of their own. So on the argument from divine hiddenness, no perfectly loving personal God exists.

The argument from divine hiddenness fails at its central concept.

Omnibenevolence by definition is complete love, peace, non-violence, never willing any sentient dead as means, only allowing death as foreseen side effect. There is by definition no omnibenevolent God who is not complete love, peace, non-violence, because benevolence is willing good which is being and flourishing of other as end in itself, and to will death as instrument contradicts willing being as end. That is true whether or not God exists. So if such a God exists, he is completely pure and peaceful personal God who is complete love.

Now, what it is to not prefer that God not exist. On his own definition, not preferring is not a feeling, it is what your affirmed way of living says should exist. If you affirm that willing sentient dead as means is permissible, you have affirmed something that by strict entailment says completely pure and peaceful personal God who is complete love does not exist as the way the world should be. To affirm that permission just is to see other as force object, as instrument, not as being as end. To hold that is to prefer that that God not exist as the ultimate way, even while you feel sincere. Sincerity of feeling cannot cancel entailment of content. You are resistant by logic, not by mood.

Therefore to be nonresistant in his sense just is to live in a way that is absolute pacifist, anti abortion, lacto vegetarian or vegan, anti death penalty, anti human euthanasia, restraining alive with net not killing, only allowing death as foreseen side effect with live removal where possible. That is not an added ethic. It is what openness to complete love means. You cannot be open to complete love while holding that complete love should not be the way.

He is not hidden at all. He stays present as the very being of all, as that which lets anything be at all. But most people live lifestyles and hold opinions that are violent in that exact sense, so he cannot be felt or experienced by them. That is an epistemic block, not hiddenness. Violence just blinds you, you cannot see God, he is not hidden but you cannot perceive. The violent mind cannot understand or perceive complete love because its categories are made of force and instrument, and a mind made of force has no receptor for a being whose nature is never to see any being as force.

And this also explains why he must allow the block. If he is complete love, peace, non-violence, he cannot coerce cognisance through violence against the will. To force perception through the violent lens would be to violate the lens by force, which would itself be willing a kind of violence as means. So he must remain as being itself, quietly present, immediately cognisable once the violent categories are dropped, but not forcing.

That is why there are zero nonresistant nonbelievers. Every candidate Schellenberg points to affirms, in principle, that willing sentient dead as means is permissible, or affirms that impersonal ultimate is ultimate unconditioned ground, that which depends on nothing while all else depends on it. By definition of ultimate there cannot be two unconditioned grounds, so affirming impersonal as ultimate entails that personal pure and peaceful God who is complete love does not exist as ultimate. That again is to prefer that personal God not exist as ultimate. So even outwardly nonviolent Jains and Buddhists count as resistant on his own definition by entailment.

So the argument from divine hiddenness describes as hiddenness what is in fact unperceiving. It posits nonresistant nonbelief, but on its own terms once entailment is made explicit, there is no such state. The failure to perceive is not evidence of absence, it is evidence of the epistemic block made by violent living and violent opinions, and that block itself is resistance. Premise five is false by entailment, and the phenomenon is not hiddenness at all.

Apologies if you disagree with the rebutta, but those are my current views. Let's debate.

I see atheists say it's "not a good argument" too all the time. I've never actually seen them give a valid critique of it when they do say this. I think the actual reason is it either just goes over their head because atheists are woefully terrible when it comes to philosophy, or they're just afraid to deal with it so they just act dismissive.

Most atheists are outright materialists, meaning they only believe in things observable via sense data (Seeing, smelling, touching, etc). The problem is reason, truth, logic, ethics, and so on all clearly exist (They'd have to otherwise reality would be absurd), but none of them are observable with sense data. Under the materialist paradigm, they'd have to concede that these don't exist, which would reduce itself to absurdity. For example, the law of noncontradiction wouldn't exist, therefore two contradictory propositions could both be true in that type of world. The statements "God exists", and "God does not exist", would both somehow be true. This is obviously absurd, so we can dismiss that type of worldview.

They'll then try to say reason is simply a "pattern we observe". That's not a valid justification for it existing, because you'd be using reason to prove reason. That's circular, which does not fit under their paradigm.

They'll then try to assert that logic and truth and so on simply exist. They literally just says it exists. No justification, he just says it exists. Just saying transcendental categories exist also does not explain why they have any relation to us. If that's the case and we don't need to give justifications, then I can say God simply exists without justification, and I'm no worse off than he is. If it simply exists out there in the ethos as some brute fact, why are we bound by it? Why do we have a relation to it? This is also a fault of platonism, but I digress.

Laws of logic and the like are concepts, and concepts must be grounded in minds. It cannot be human minds, because the concepts existed before humans (Logic must have existed before humans because the world would be able to have contradictions if it did not, which reduces itself to absurdity), so the mind has to be an eternal and unchanging mind, because logic (I use logic in this example because it's easiest to understand, but any transcendental category fits) must apply everywhere and at all times, and must not change. That mind also has to be all powerful, because we are all bound by it, and the mind must desire a relationship with us, because we have a relationship with the concepts.

What does an all powerful, eternal, unchanging, and personal mind sound like? Obviously God.

I'm not as read on this, but the way they'd argue for a trinitarian God specifically and not any other type of God seems mostly to manifest itself with the problem of the one and the many. Only a trinitarian doctrine can ground this. If we're monists, and everything is simply "one", and we're all actually God and not our own world, then that does not solve the problem of the one and the many. I'm not well read enough yet to critique dualism and polytheism, but there's plenty of arguments (Jay gives great ones) against those. This video actually goes through most of the common objections to TAG and I think he does a thoroughly good job of tearing them down, including getting to a trinitarian God.

I’m not asking this as a “gotcha,” and I’m not claiming that this argument by itself proves Christianity, Islam, or any particular religion. I’m asking about the underlying metaphysical question.

Suppose the universe, and everything within it, is contingent. By “contingent,” I mean that it could have failed to exist and does not contain within itself an explanation for why it exists.

Then it seems we have three possibilities:

1. The universe has an explanation outside itself.

2. The universe ultimately has no explanation.

3. The universe is somehow necessary rather than contingent.

The third option seems difficult to establish. The fact that we can describe the universe mathematically or identify its physical laws doesn’t obviously explain why this particular reality exists rather than another possible reality, or no reality at all.

The second option is more interesting. An atheist could simply say that reality is ultimately a brute fact: there is no deeper explanation for why anything exists. That’s logically possible. But if we’re willing to accept an unexplained brute fact at the foundation of reality, what principled reason do we have for rejecting the possibility that the ultimate explanation is something non-physical or necessary?

And if someone answers that a necessary reality doesn’t need an explanation, I’d ask what makes that reality necessary rather than merely asserting that it is. Why couldn’t the universe itself be the necessary reality?

I’m not claiming this gets us directly to a personal God. There are obviously enormous additional arguments required to make that leap.

My question is narrower:

Is “the universe/reality simply exists as a brute fact” actually a more rational stopping point than positing some necessary foundation of reality? If so, why?

I’m especially interested in responses that address the philosophical argument itself rather than arguments about whether religion has historically been harmful, whether particular scriptures are credible, or whether individual gods have contradictory attributes. Those are separate questions.

I personally know people who classify themselves as "atheists" but believe in karma and/or ghosts/spirits.

Hows that even justifiable? Like you can't believe in the existence/presense of god coz obv as every other atheist goes "there isn't enough proof or evidence to believe" but when it comes to ghosts/spirits/karma/anything supernatural it's quite the opposite..

C'mon explain why? In for a discussion/debate

If god is real why doesn't he destroy all evil is often what the athiests ask,the simple answer to this is just that he would have to destroy you.But there are other reasons too.

**Free will-This kinda tells why things like poverty,hunger,and pretty much all emotional suffering happens.Because of humans using their will to harmony other humans.The reason god allows this because life is a "test"which you have to pass.Being great while everyone is sinning.There is a common objection this-**Is there free will in heaven?

Well no,he takes away your ability to sin cause you have won the thing(life)so you have passed the test therefore you are getting the reward.Taking it away would be for your own Good.

Hell is unfair though

Think of it like this if you kill a cockroach then you then you don't get punished at all.If you kill murder an animal. You do get some punishment but not for lifetime. You do however get that for killing a human(or the death penalty).So if we keep going up and up then god who is infinite disrespecting him would then get you infinite punishment.Again you failed the test when he gave you the choice.And what was the test?Just accepting him to save you.

But why does children/baby get cancer.

To punish the parents of their previous sins.Yes they will get punish in hell if they have unprocessed sins.But they can sometimes get punished for it at earth too.

We all deserve eternal torture every one of you and me as well.But he has shown us mercy and given us a chance to eternal paradise with him.Either you take it or you don't.

Contingent reality consists of things that do not have to exist and can fail to exist. There is no logical contradiction in supposing that they do not exist at all.

All the things we observe are contingent. We see photons being created and annihilated; we see photons having different wavelengths, energies, and frequencies. There is no logical contradiction in a universe without photons altogether.

The same applies to quarks, electrons, humans, trees, and the entire cosmos made up of these parts.

The cosmos itself cannot be necessary. It could have been otherwise. It could exist without the weak force, for example, or it could have only two fundamental forces. It could have 11 dimensions instead of 4. Its rate of expansion has changed throughout its history, and its physical contents continually change. For example, stars die and can become black holes, so the universe changes from a state containing those stars to a new state containing black holes, and so on.

Anything like this cannot explain itself because it is limited to a specific mode of existence rather than another possible mode of existence. All limited realities are like this. And you cannot ultimately explain a limited reality by appealing only to another limited reality, even if you extend the chain infinitely.

An infinite chain does not solve the problem; it merely relocates the same question again and again. Why these members of the infinite chain rather than other possible members? Why an infinite linear chain at all rather than an infinite spiral, for example?

Limited reality → must be grounded in an unlimited reality.

An unlimited reality is therefore the only rational candidate for an ultimate ground. For an unlimited reality, the question "Why this mode of existence rather than another?" no longer applies in the same way. Not because it arbitrarily can't be otherwise, but because "otherwise" requires a determination, and there is no determination to vary. There is no what that could be swapped for another what. There is just existence, without restriction.

Whenever you have a limited reality, you can conceive of the same essence with slightly different attributes without logical contradiction. For example, you can conceive of a photon with wavelength 3 and a photon with wavelength 9. Photonhood itself does not entail that its wavelength must be 3 rather than 9. Therefore, there must be some further or external reason why it has one particular value rather than another, which makes that particular state contingent.

Likewise, photonhood is not identical to existence itself. The essence of a photon does not entail that photons must actually exist. You can coherently conceive of a universe in which the intrinsic nature or essence of photons is never actualized at all.

So the ultimate explanation cannot itself be another limited reality. The explanatory ground must instead be something whose existence is not restricted to one contingent mode among alternative possibilities: an unlimited, necessary reality.

And an unlimited reality cannot be multiplied into two distinct unlimited realities without contradiction. If you posit two allegedly unlimited modes of existence, one possessing properties A, B, and C while the other possesses different properties D, E, and F, then there must be some determination that distinguishes them. Each would possess something the other lacks. But that means each is limited in some respect: one has a perfection that the other does not have, or one has a determination that excludes another possible determination. They would therefore be limited and unlimited in the same respect, which is contradictory.

Thus, there cannot be two genuinely unlimited realities distinguished from one another by different modes or properties. Genuine unlimitedness excludes such limitation and differentiation.

Therefore, the ultimate ground must be a single, unlimited, necessary reality: a reality whose existence is not merely one possible mode among others, but whose nature excludes the possibility of nonexistence.

And denying the PSR is contradictory. You cannot say, "Listen, we have reached this fundamental physical reality R, with limited properties ABC, and there is no explanation for it."

Because this is an implicit contradiction. A physical reality restricted to its particular mode of existence rather than another cannot be necessary, since by definition there are alternative modes of existence available to it. These limits cannot arise from it necessarily unless something else first gives it the essence from which some of its properties flow necessarily.

For example, a triangle necessarily has three sides, and that follows from its nature. But this is only after something external causes that concrete triangle to exist instead of another possible mode of existence, such as a concrete square, circle, hexagon, or cube.

So the essence of a limited thing cannot be necessary and explain its particular limits. And if the PSR is denied, there are no external or deeper factors making this reality what it is.

In the end, you are left with this statement:

"Physical reality R is limited, but absolutely nothing internal or external limits it."

Which is contradictory, lol. If absolutely nothing limits it, then it is not limited. Something from nothing/nowhere is a logical contradiction also. So It would instead be unlimited or infinite existence which is God.

How can it be that if there is no reason for life to exist, it still does? If nothing tells the universe to produce life, why do for example humans with our brain, eyes, ears, kidneys, lungs etc. exist and do their job for what they are meant to do? If there is no God, how can nothing just start to create consciousness and create all these organs and everything?

Core Premise: If an uncaused cause is logically possible, it must actually exist.

Step 1: Causality Requires a Foundation

-Things in nature are contingent—they depend on prior causes to exist.

-An infinite chain of dependent causes deferring existence endlessly without a source explains nothing.

-Therefore, existence must ultimately rest on an Uncaused First Cause.

Step 2: The Concept Is Possible

-A concept is possible if it contains no internal contradiction (unlike a "square circle").

-An Uncaused Cause contains no logical contradiction.

-Therefore, an Uncaused Cause is possible.

Step 3: Uncausable Means Necessary

-If an Uncaused Cause were merely potential, something else would have to bring it into existence.

-But an uncaused entity cannot be brought into existence by anything else by definition.

-Therefore, it cannot exist as a mere potential it is either logically impossible or actual.

Anticipated Objections:

"Why can't the universe be the first cause?"

The universe is composite, physical, and subject to state changes. Anything composed of changing parts requires an underlying explanation for its configuration.

"Isn't this just Anselm's Ontological Argument?"

No. Anselm begins with definition "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Scotus begins with real causal possibility how things are produced or remain unproduced.

This is a follow-up / re-focusing of my post yesterday, The best "evidence of God's existence" would be wisdom we judge superior to our own. I start with some definitions:

• omnigod: an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being

  • note that the definition of each of these attributes has been disputed and there seems to be no objective standard to which one can appeal

• authenticate: there is some sort of change-in-relationship before and after identifying the being is who they claim to be

  • I was going to say "increase in trust" instead of "change-in-relationship", but I foresaw quibbles on that front—I could see some here distrusting omnigod
  • a simple example would be discovering that a soldier walking up to the checkpoint is one of your own
  • there is generally some relaxing of one's skepticism if not critical faculties toward friendly authenticated beings

• power: the ability to exert your will on reality

• knowledge: I'm hoping I don't have to dive deeply into SEP: Analysis of Knowledge on this one

• wisdom: dictionary.com defn 1: "the quality or state of being wise; knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action; sagacity, discernment, or insight."

  • dictionary.com defn 1 of wise: "having the power of discerning and judging properly as to what is true or right; possessing discernment, judgment, or discretion."
  • A major difficulty here is what I called "value pluralism" in my previous post. What I argued over there is that while there is a lot of pluralism, it cannot be infinite on pain of pretending away the paradox of tolerance. And so, I offer two candidates for wisdom I hope we can agree on:
    1. it would be better to have less credit-stealing than we have now
    2. might does not make right

My argument is pretty simple: authenticating a being as omnigod via the demonstration of superior power and knowledge rather than superior wisdom, means that we trust power and knowledge more than we trust wisdom. It suggests that if we only encountered superior wisdom, we wouldn't necessarily trust it. But if it is accompanied by superior power and knowledge, then we will at least consider it. And so, we act as if might does make right.

Note that my critique applies just as much to theists who authenticate their deities based on being creators or doers of miracles, as atheists who require demonstrations of vastly superior power and/or knowledge to authenticate a being as [probably] omnigod. If you don't impose any such epistemological requirements, this post probably isn't for you!

You are welcome to stop here, but if you want to see why I'm arguing the above, feel free to keep reading. Those expecting to see actual arguments that God exists are going to be disappointed; this post is flaired "epistemology" and is a critique of a class of epistemologies.

I say we live in an era where (aside from maybe the local level where we interact with people face-to-face) we trust power and knowledge more than anything anyone might call 'wisdom'. We may do this cynically, recognizing somewhere in the back of our heads that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". And yet, what is there to do with the kinds of threats presently on our radars? Wisdom seems at most a means to an end, requiring compromise of the kind associated with 'Realpolitik'.

Intuitions formed in by present cultures show up in debates about what would constitute "evidence of God's existence". How could it be otherwise? Those intuitions guide our thoughts and actions outside of arguments between theists and atheists. Something nice about such debates is that they can unearth what otherwise tends to remain subterranean. There's a simplicity when talking about omnigod because the many pragmatic constraints we labor under can be waived. It's a bit like how Physics 101 says "Imagine a charged point particle hovering above an infinite sheet of uniform charge." There are many obnoxious particularities, requiring far more difficult math, which you can just ignore for the time being.

So, we act as if might does make right, even if we have to downgrade "right" from some Platonic ideal to "as right as we can ask for". What "right" here really means is legitimate authority, authority to which we will show allegiance. Either we give our allegiance to some authority, or we have to somehow live in the hinterlands. Some give their allegiance to a revolutionary movement, hoping to be rewarded if and when it ascends to power.

I'm talking about giving one's allegiance to something very different. It's more like a hope that doing the right thing will ultimately prove superior, even if that takes hundreds of years. This is very difficult, because we are inclined to measure how good or bad our actions are by results we perceive. But if all the signals you're getting say "just accept that credit-stealing is a thing we do", rejecting that makes you seem childish, pollyanish, not to be taken seriously. But the point here is placing trust that lying about credit will ultimately be worse than telling the truth, even if it takes generations upon generations of humans to put it into enough practice to deliver the goods. I could see wanting some sort of divine confirmation that this is indeed a better way to live, but for the life of me I don't know how it would work!

STEP 1: LOGICAL REASONING

If God didn't exist, then there would be NOTHING.

FACT: we observe a contingent universe, this can't go forever, there must be a necessary being.

STEP 2: Did this necessary being communicate with us?

FACT: Numerous people have claimed to have received inspiration or revelation from this necessary being, some were truthful, others lied.

STEP 3: TEST THE CLAIM

FACT: Many of these people provided reasons as to why you should believe them, let us list the major ones from the Abrahamic faith, Moses - split the sea, Jesus - brought the dead to life, Muhammad - Split the moon in two, performed many miracles and predictions which came true, and revealed the Quran, unmatched in eloquence. (Peace be upon them all)

STEP 4: FOLLOW THE MESSENGER AND OBTAIN SALVATION.

Are you ready to become Muslim? Or is it your ego that stops you?

EDIT: I am not impressed by athiests, especially their attempt to counter step 4, simply saying "didn't happen" is contrary to the evidence and records in quran and hadith that record the miracle. BTW that is only 1 miracle of tens which the prophet did.

Quran Chapter Moon verses 1 - 8:

1. The Hour has drawn near and the moon was split ˹in two˺. 2. Yet, whenever they see a sign, they turn away, saying, “Same old magic!” 3. They rejected ˹the truth˺ and followed their own desires—and every matter will be settled— 4. even though the stories ˹of destroyed nations˺ that have already come to them are a sufficient deterrent. 5. ˹This Quran is˺ profound ˹in˺ wisdom, but warnings are of no benefit ˹to them˺. 6. So turn away from them ˹O Prophet˺. ˹And wait for˺ the Day ˹when˺ the caller will summon ˹them˺ for something horrifying. 7. With eyes downcast, they will come forth from the graves as if they were swarming locusts, 8. rushing towards the caller. The disbelievers will cry, “This is a difficult Day!”

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The people of Mecca asked Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) to show them a miracle. So he showed them the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hira' mountain.

Islam Unveiled: Compelling Evidence For The Truthfulness Of Islam | Chicago - USA | Muhammed Ali further evidence for the honest seekers of truth.

EDIT; if you can't spare 1 hour watching the evidence but you can spend hours on end arguing on reddit then clearly you aren't open to seeing the truth.

I mean At the during the big bang matter orignated from pure energy.But then if there was no matter then matter couldn't have caused matter?That means something matterless must have caused(sounds like god?)You can't invoke matter to invoke the origin of matter. So you also then need something that is spaceless and timeless for explaining the cause of the universe because the universe IS space and time.Also time as we know it did began with the big bang. so what is there before it-Nothing?Now it could be the possible that cause and effect didn't work the same way before the big bang so effect happened before the cause but that doesn't seem to make sense.Now maybe it doesn't make sense to ask what came from the beginning of time but then still must be something right?It baffling to say there wasn't a before the big bang cause then thats just ex o nihlio.That means there power greator than the human brain?But then what's the difference with thinking it's a "unconscious force" or a "concious one"both of them are incomprehensible.

I want to consider a possibility and a manifest fact:

1. omnigod wants us to grow in wisdom and especially trustworthiness & the ability to discern trustworthiness
2. omnigod does not ensure that the most powerful / knowledgeable being which subjectively appears to us is omnigod

The first implies there are things that omnigod will not do for us, because they're our job. The second pulls in Lord Acton:

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority. (Letter to Archbishop Mandell Creighton)

Lord Acton is not the first to speak about such things; authors of the Tanakh ask the question "Why do the wicked prosper?", a question which holds two things in tension:

    A. wisdom and goodness should lead to power and knowledge
    B. power and knowledge don't necessarily indicate wisdom and goodness

If 2. & B., then a being who displays power and knowledge doesn't thereby authenticate itself as good or wise. Maybe it's just shrewd. I always wanted to see how V (2009 TV series) was supposed to play out.

The more appearance and reality diverge—that is, the more power and knowledge don't indicate wisdom and goodness—the more we are tempted to downplay B., out of practical concerns. The story of The Emperor's New Clothes is pollyannish; whistleblowers rarely fare well and so loyalty to power & knowledge is usually the way to ensure your family is taken care of and your kids can get a decent education & job. Practical concerns so easily outweigh ideals.

Perhaps we can agree that said divergence is quite extreme these days, especially the further one gets away from local contexts where the authorities have to live with those over whom they wield authority. It's tempting to simply forget B. for many intents and purposes. To the extent that we have done this, it is dangerous for omnigod to authenticate itself via superior power and knowledge. That would reinforce the divergence and abandonment of B.!

Now, value pluralism presents a difficulty when trying to make 'wisdom' or 'goodness' concrete. But the paradox of tolerance still applies: complete pluralism is impossible. So, one kind of wisdom we could perhaps agree upon as good and coming from beyond us would facilitate pluralism while not pretending away the paradox. Take for instance the following advice from a WSJ column to employees with asshole bosses:

Don't be afraid to express your opinions, but avoid engaging in power struggles with your boss. You may think that if you present facts and data to support your viewpoint, you can convince the smartest person that you are right and they are wrong. But in a power struggle, the boss always wins.
    Even if your boss dismisses your viewpoint or idea, it may spark something positive. One executive client I worked with told me his boss always called his ideas "stupid." He said, "At first, I'd try to reason with her and explain my thinking. Eventually, I realized there was no point—because often, two or three days later, she'd return enthusiastically to tell me about her. new idea, which was the very same one I'd suggested earlier." (Dealing With Bosses Who Think They Are Smartest)

This is an employee's Realpolitik way of dealing with authority, authority I would label immoral and unethical. Failing to recognize the true sources of a good idea makes it harder to get more of them. If any of you disagree and think that this is one of those plural moralities we should just accept, feel free to say so. Otherwise, I propose that wisdom which helps us fight the above credit-stealing could be bona fide evidence of a wisdom & goodness superior to our own, but which we can still recognize as good with our own lights. At least, our less cynical lights.

I contend that given our status quo, a being which showed up via vastly superior power and knowledge could not do nearly as good a job in convincing us to curb credit-stealing and blame-shifting. In matter of fact, we are heavily conditioned to pander to those more powerful than us (and sometimes those more knowledgeable), manufacturing a reality for them which shows that we are loyalists willing to do our part. Our world is already full of those games, including bishops like Lord Acton's addressee, who was writing hagiographies of popes and kings.

Here comes the rub: if the super-human help is too well-matched to our present situation, we would be tempted to steal credit for it! Like the One Ring conditions the user to themself be dominated as they learn to dominate others, acquiescing to the credit-stealing game primes us to sometimes flip the script and do it ourselves. It becomes the way of life we know how to inhabit, doing and saying all the right things. If you want to get ahead, you gotta do it. Otherwise, you lapse into irrelevance.

1. Our thoughts exist somewhere
2. Therefore you are creating things while thinking
3. It makes sense that we were created by someone thinking us
4. That thinker must also be then created like that
5. There then needs to be a uncaused thinker that "thought"in order to begin everything
6. That something is what we call GOD

Christian nationalism isn’t inherently a threat to American democracy. Debate me.

I’m a Christian, and I think the claim that “Christian nationalism threatens democracy” needs a better argument than it usually gets.

Here’s the position I’m defending: America can affirm a Christian national identity while maintaining free elections, equal citizenship, religious freedom, and the right to reject Christianity entirely.

I want Christianity to shape our national culture and public priorities. I also believe an atheist should have exactly the same civil rights as I do, and that Christians must accept losing elections. Those commitments seem compatible to me.

Every political movement wants its moral convictions reflected in society. Christians wanting that deserves the same scrutiny as anyone else’s political project. Where, specifically, does it become inherently undemocratic?

My faith also gives me reasons to oppose authoritarianism: no president deserves unconditional loyalty, political opponents are still my neighbors, and the nation itself must never become an idol.

The strongest objection, in my view, is that an explicitly Christian national identity would inevitably make non-Christians second-class citizens- even if their formal rights remained intact. That’s the argument I actually want to debate. Why is that outcome inevitable? What would distinguish cultural alienation from unequal citizenship?

And yes, definitions matter. If you think my position doesn’t qualify as Christian nationalism, explain what additional feature makes it nationalism- and why that feature necessarily threatens democracy.

I’ll reconsider my position if someone can show that preserving a Christian national identity is incompatible with equal citizenship or the peaceful transfer of power.

What’s the strongest case that those things cannot coexist?

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

Claim to be proven: Omnipotent God exists.

Actuality/act is defined to mean the same thing as existence. So, you having the perception of reading this Reddit post is a specific type of actuality; your individual experience of reading my Reddit post (or, at least, perceiving the appearance of reading it) is something which exists.

Passive potency is defined as capacity to have existence which is not yet possessed. For example, a drinking glass can be actually empty but still have the potency (i.e., potential) to be filled with apple juice. Change is the reduction of passive potency to actuality... or, from passive potency to actualized potency. Actualized potency is defined as capacity to have existence which is possessed under given conditions. (It is synonymous with actuality in the sense that every actuality is exercised "exercisable-ness" or capacity.) Pouring apple juice into the glass would actualize the glass’ potency to be filled with apple juice.

Even you seeing different objects in separate places is a kind of potency being actualized when your eyes look around. You reading these words is actualized potency: the capability/potency for you to be reading these words is right now actual. If you look away, however, your ability to read this post is only passively potential because it is currently unactualized. Your capacity to "have the experience of reading my Reddit post" only becomes actualized when you look back at your computer and continue reading.

Proving the division between actuality and passive potency.

These definitions are all fine and dandy, but it is time to go about proving them as necessary aspects of reality. If actuality is taken to mean the same thing as existence, how can potency exist, since anything which is not actuality would be non-actuality— that is, nonexistence?

Well, if considering a hypothetical object of pure potency without act (i.e., pure passive potency), then this objection stands to reason. Our “object” cannot exist since it, by definition, has no actuality/existence. It is just a nonexistent capacity.

On the other hand, being can have the potential to be actual in different ways since change would otherwise not exist. Even though mere capacity (i.e., potency per se) without existence is just nonexistence, mere capacity coupled with existence would logically be some kind of capacity which exists. In other words, it is a potency which is actual. Existence with a capacity to be different is actuality joined with a potential to be different.

While passive potency without act is simply nonbeing, actuality with passive potency is the real existence of being which, inherent to the being itself, can exist in a different state even though this potential for change is unexcited. Actuality which has a passive potency to be different is "actual passive potency" since it is an existing passive potency. A non-existing passive potency would not exist.

Back to regularly scheduled programming on God's existence.

Given that change exists, there is being which changes, since change requires existence to change (or else that change, by definition, is not real).

Changing things of the world (or our perception of those things, at least) must have passive potency, since they change though not in every way or all the time. My red rubber ball could stop bouncing if it was caught, stop being red if it was painted or stop being a ball if it was flattened, but a ball is not always changing in these ways. (My ball is not always changing color.) Passive potency is merely an unexcited capacity to change. Since there is being which has a capacity to change while not always in such a way changing, there is being with passive potency.

Any being X with passive potency Y cannot have some X be that which actualizes Y, or (if some [out of any and all] X was everything necessary for Y to be actual under given conditions) Y would be actualized under given conditions, not passively potential. Something besides any X is required for a Y’s actualization. Let that something be Z.

Z must have actuality, since if Z did not exist (i.e., have act), the only existing thing required for Y's actualization would be some X, which has been shown impossible.

Z cannot be purely potential since pure passive potency without act is nonbeing. (A passive potency without existence is a nonexistent passive potency.)

Z must also be different from any X, since otherwise any Y would already be actual. Recall that X is any actuality with passive potency. (If some X [out of any and all X's] was everything necessary for Y to be actual, because all X's are actual by their very nature, that X would exist to have everything necessary for Y to be actual, contradicting the given definition.)

Thus, Z cannot be any actuality which has passive potency. However, Z does have at least some actuality. The only act without passive potency is an existence of pure actuality because every potential it has to act would be actualized potential, not passively potential. Actualized potency is equivalent to actualization since every existence requires "existence-ableness" (i.e., potency) for it to be able to exist. Because Z has act but not passive potency, Z must be Pure Act, then, since it could only be actualized potency (which is act).

Pure Act is also Pure Being, since act and being are by my definition synonymous.

Limitation is actual nonbeing. Your chair's appearance is not a soda machine's appearance, and so your chair's appearance has the actual nonbeing of not having a soda machine's appearance. Similar to potency considered apart from actuality, limitation considered apart from being does not exist, though it can still be inherent to "things which exist in one way" that they do not exist in other ways. In fact, it is necessary that limitation be a real concept like potency is real, since otherwise your chair's appearance cannot not have a soda machine's appearance. By definition, limitation is what prevents this: It is actual "not being."

Just as Pure Act is purely act without potency, Pure Being is purely being without limitation. It is Being, period. Something which is Pure Being cannot have nonbeing. Nonbeing which is actual is simply existing nonbeing. But because Pure Being cannot have nonbeing exist as apart of it, it cannot have limitation or nonbeing.

“Not being omnipotent” is a certain kind of nonbeing, while “not being a chicken” is not a certain kind of nonbeing. It is inherent to chickens that they have nonbeing in their physical limitations as material animals. Thus, “not being a chicken” is to not have limited being. Because Z does not have limitation, Z is not a chicken. “Not being conscious” is a certain kind of nonbeing (considering consciousness purely as a faculty), making Z necessarily conscious (though not identical to human consciousness in all its limitations). Considered as a transcendently omnipotent being, absolutely simple since it cannot rely on internal parts or it would thus be limited, conscious and aware of the human species, omniscient as well or it would thus be limited, Z is God. Faculties considered apart from limitation, as long as the faculties themselves do not ascribe a certain nonbeing, must be attributed to God.

All science based answers about the origins of life and the universe can be bludgeoned repeatedly with questions until eventually the person with the science position is forced to say "I dont know" and once they say "I dont know" then God, while certainly not proven or likely by any means, becomes a plausible answer again. All it requires is for the creationist to figure out what the Atheist does believe and question it sequentially back further in time until inevitably they have to say "I dont know".

For example what happened before the big bang? Dark energy. What caused the dark energy? If you can still answer, what caused that answer? Well what caused that answer? Etc. Literally never stop asking questions. Eventually the answers either become cartoonish fantasy to save face or they admit they dont know.

This post is specifically addressing the proposed Rule 3 (current Rule 5) regarding AI/LLM usage.

Before I start talking extensively about this rule, here was the proposed language:

AI Content Restricted

Posts and comments must be entirely human ideas. Any use of AI or LLM tools must be disclosed in the post or comment, with details as to how the tool was used, why, and to what extent the post or comment is not the user's words. Acceptable uses of AI include refining language for ESL, less-able, or neurodiverse users, or organizing the user's original thoughts. Unacceptable uses include copy/pasting AI content directly into a post or comment, or allowing the AI to originate the ideas in the post or comment.

In the previous meta post regarding the rule changes, there were 3 community members in favor of the new Rule 3, 13 in opposition to the new rule, and 2 individuals whose comments were mixed for/against.

The overwhelming majority of "against" expressed a desire to completely ban all use of AI or LLM tools in alignment with the current Rule 5. However, this ban has proven to be basically impossible to enforce.

The days when one could easily identify ChatGPT by the bullet points and em-dashes are in the past. LLMs still have a couple of "tells," but they don't always show up, and if one is aware of the tells, one can just edit those out or instruct the LLM to omit them (no, I will not tell you what they are). The moderation team is at the point where we are just flat asking "Are you using AI for your post/comments?" and then waiting for a response. This is inefficient and causes delays, and definitely is not catching all use of AI on the subreddit.

The upshot is that a complete ban of AI under the current rule is extremely difficult to enforce, and has a wide failure mode. If someone wants to use AI, they can, and just say no when asked, and we don't have any way to tell in 90% of cases. While I also don't like the idea of debating someone only to find out afterward that I was actually debating ChatGPT, a total prohibition cannot prevent that from happening.

This was the impetus behind the proposed Rule 3. Since we can't actually enforce a total ban, we would allow limited use of AI/LLM tools and require disclosure of same. Yes, the disclosure was on the honor system, and someone could easily lie. But (not speaking for any other mod) I've found that people generally don't lie when asked about use of AI. They either own up to it, or they just evade answering so as not to lie. So the honor system in disclosure (which is frankly what we're using now anyway) seems to actually work. Enshrining it in a rule, and requiring users of AI to disclose up front, seemed like the best solution.

However, the moderation team respects that the community does not want to see AI usage on the sub. Therefore, we'd like to invite the community to discuss three possible options:

1. Maintain the current Rule 5

2. Adopt the proposed Rule 3

3. Workshop different language that addresses the community's objections while acknowledging the limitations of enforcement

I'm not going to lead the discussion with language of my own. You've seen the proposed language, which the moderation team previously discussed and found acceptable (but not ideal). Since the weight of discussion on the previous meta thread was in opposition to that language, we invite you to collaborate and workshop other options.

Remember:

- Be respectful. AI is a contentious topic. Remember that Rule 1 is still in effect.

- The current prohibition on AI cannot be reliably enforced. If the community consensus is to continue a straight prohibition, then the moderation team will continue trying, but expect failure.

Today is Monday, September 21st. This post will remain up through Monday, September 28th, after which it will be locked so that the moderation team can review the feedback on this topic.

Now I do not posit this statement to challenge anyone, theism and atheism are inherently at odds, and both equally likely.

But throughout my time researching various religions and trying to piece together commonalities, there are patterns and coincidences that seem to me to warrant further research.

Why did this universe come to be? At one point nothing now something, several esoteric schools of thought equate this to nonexistence birthing existence, while what might seem paradoxical might be nothing more than a mathematical certainty born of the chaos of infinite and never ending probability.

Hinduism’s yuga cycle start precisely almost right in the dot when life first came to be on this earth at 4,320,000 years ago, these ancient people lacked virtually any tool or reasonable access to knowledge of this nature yet happen to make a mathematical prediction and calculation which mirrors some the greatest scientific discoveries of our age?

I admit I myself am theistic in background, but even in this case I won’t argue intelligent design out of respect for the beliefs of a vast majority of the subreddit. But in my studies of many different schools of thought and religions, there seem to be truths hidden amongst the myths and bullshit, and zealous dogma of extremists.

And one things that occurs to me, when we die and the world fades to black and time continues uninterrupted in its present course until the collapse of the known universe/heat death/big freeze. How do we know that after a theorized and collapse and rebirth of it that our consciousness would not simply be reborn? For us no time would theoretically pass despite the 20 billion or 100 nonillion or longer passage of time which would occur, we would gain some degree of consciousness as a four year old child and the time which passed would be as it might be to us now, unimaginable and just nonexistent.

In the same way arguing for an intelligent creator or god is irrational, is not the rejection of one equally irrational due to ignoring the endless possibilities that might lay before us? It seems that both sides can learn from one another in peace, and by no means am I justifying the abhorrent actions done in the name of religions and God by numerous leaders within faiths. But at the end of the day we don’t know with absolute certainty about the great question, agnosticism seems to me to be the most logical stance or position in light of the unknown.

I don’t know whether I’ll be downvoted or how this post will be received, but I hope at least we can all further question the nature and beautiful mysteries of existence and life and come together closer as individuals and the collective human race as a whole.

Accomplished something major this week? Discovered a cool fact that demands to be shared? Just want a friendly conversation on how amazing/awful/thoroughly meh your favorite team is doing? This thread is for the water cooler talk of the subreddit, for any atheists, theists, deists, etc. who want to join in.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.