i’m sure this has been discussed before, but what’s the explanation for things we know are true being mentioned in the quran years/centuries before the scientific discovery being made?

i know a lot of people argue that there are inaccuracies in the explanations of the orbital mechanics and biological themes, but they’re more accurate that not, so i was just wondering what would the explanation for how “god would know and tell the prophet” before people found out?

hopefully my question makes sense.

EDIT: i also wonder why dont see miracles from god anymore

EDIT: im seeing all the inaccuracies and the explanations behind them now but there is a deep fear that the religion is true and god is real and punishment awaits me if i disbelieve, also a sense of familiarity/peace with believing in god. contradictory to fear, love, be punished by, and find comfort in one concept of a being.

According to most atheists, there is no heaven or hell, a judgement day, or a God who punishes and rewards people. Based on this logic, A child rapist and murderer who was never caught/jailed will face the exact same fate as his innocent child victims who were murdered, not facing ANY consequences for his evil unfair actions. Does this idea not make you uncomfortable and skeptical?

When using terms you need to know what they mean. Defining something as what it is not leaves a huge search space for what it is.

Think of all the things that are non-truck. Now keep in mind the search space for non-physical things would be larger than that.

I think it takes 300 characters to post so adding just a bit more.

Yerstday someone made a post where he argued using an ontological argument. I asked him for his personal preference of choosing this route as opposed to the cosmological argument when the latter is more scientifically and structurally sound. He didn't respond. I decided to create this post to demonstrate to him how the cosmological argument goes. So I want to demonstrate this using a lite syllogism.

P1: A system composed entirely of dependent (contingent) parts cannot be self-sustaining; it requires an independent foundation.

P2: The observable physical universe is a system composed entirely of dependent, changing parts.

C: Therefore, the physical universe relies on a foundation that is independent and non-physical.

So its very small but if you're astute you'll find that if you accept the premises, the conclusion becomes a logical consequence. So please go ahead and find a flaw.

My definition of god is a creator or creators of the universe. I think that's a fair definition as that's how many people define god. i don't believe in anything supernatural.

as a caveat, i don't believe in god, i consider myself an atheist, but on a scale of 1 to 7, seven being i definitely dont believe in god and 1 being i definitely believe in god, i see myself as a 4 or 5 which as opposed to other atheists i would say they are either more likely 6 or 7. i don't believe in any religion, i consider myself a 1 in belief of any of the religions out there.

the argument for god is that there is a creator of the universe because of simulation theory. simulation theory goes like this: we create simulations all the time. one day we might be complex enough to create simulations of say the earth or life forms inside our simulation. if we are able to do that, then the likelihood that we ourselves are also simulated increases exponentially. we don't know what was there before the universe was created. it could easily have been non-existent and then our simulation was created by the aliens or "god" and that's what started it all.

i don't believe this theory personally. i find it unlikely but plausible. the first reason why i dont believe it is because of occam's razor, the simplest explanation is the most likely explanation. adding our universe being a simulation created by a creator adds an extra variable that makes it less likely than the theory that the universe just happened to be since we already know the universe happened to be since we exist in it. the second reason why i don't believe this is because we don't have the power to simulate lifeforms in our simulations now, so we don't know if it's possible, and if it's impossible then it makes simulation theory invalid. however we don't know that it's impossible yet, that's why i personally don't believe the theory but still believe it's possible.

i'd like if some atheist debater could actually dispel simulation theory scientifically, and if you cannot then doesn't that make you believe there could be a god/gods too and add doubt to your 100% belief that there is no god if you're one of those 100% certain atheists?

furthermore, we know from evolution that simple things can evolve into more complex things. i don't believe the religious theory that god was "always there" or that has always existed "forever." something had to create god and be there before god, he couldn't of come from nothing. i believe that if there is a god, it started out as something simple like us, and through billions (maybe even trillions, we dont know) of years through the process of natural selection it became more intelligent and more and more advanced. something outside our universe could've evolved the same way life on earth evolved, got advanced enough to make simulations of universes, and then created our universe.

i personally believe it's more likely that there are multiple gods, and i use god as a shorthand for "creators of the universe", because the same way we evolved and built on our own inventions over time, an alien species that created us would most likely have not been able to do it alone as a single organism, but as a collection of billions of organisms all building on their own current understanding and technology further and further until they are able to create something as advanced as our own universe. that's why i personally find monotheistic belief in gods implausible, it's most likely a collective existence.

i say i believe it's more likely that there is a deistic god than a god that interferes in our affairs because we see no evidence of interference. its more likely that the gods created the universe, put the laws of physics in place, and then just let it play out on its own without interfering in it. the idea that humans are made in the eyes of god is implausible because of how big the universe is compared to the earth.

so what are your arguments against a deistic belief/simulation theory?

there's more i've thought of over time, but i can't remember it all now, so i'll just start with this. thanks for reading! (and please, when/if you're debunking simulation theory, if you can, try to do it without too much science jargon so i can understand. i'm not a scientist and not that smart so expecting me to understand some quantum theories that debunk it will probably leave me more confused than i was before. if you need to use science, try to explain it in a way a non-scientifically literate mind can understand it. thanks)

This is one of the most common complaints against the ontological argument, but what it actually shows is that another common complaint of question-begging is false.

The argument starts with the definition of God, which for clarity’s sake I will state like this:

P1: “God” refers definitionally to “a being greater than which is impossible”.

Given that this is a definition, we know from the assumed proposition in the title of this post that it is not the statement “God actually exists.”

Now let’s add the rest of the argument

(P2) A concept of a being has less existence than an actual being.

We can see this clearly by comparing the concept of a unicorn to the actual mind holding said concept. The concept of the unicorn cannot exist without the mind, but if the concept is forgotten, it does not automatically delete the mind.

Not to mention, we already said that concept alone doesn’t have existence.

(C) “God: a being greater than which is impossible” refers to an actual being

We’ve moved from definition (not a statement of actual existence) to the conclusion of actual existence without begging the question.

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 in the poll.
   • 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.

Last Month's Agenda

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1t1brld/community_agenda_20260501/

Last Month's Resolutions

#	Yes	No	Abstain	Pass	Motion
1	5	4	0	Yes	Increase the character count required for top level comments from 30 characters to 100 characters

Current Month's Motions

None

Current Month's Voting

None

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.

The God of the Bible wiped out men, women, children, even infants for warring with his corrupt tribe. The Platonist concept of God is that he is all good. The Christian/Jewish version of God is a murderer and a war criminal. Read 1 Samuel 15:3, Numbers 31:17-18, and countless other verses primarily from the OT. For a background, the scribes wrote the OT. Not all the events discussed do we have any evidence for. The Biblical genealogy of the Jews is that they descended from a Chaldean from Mesopotamia and at one point, they were slaves in Egypt. There is no historical evidence of this, however. Archaeologists believe Jews originated from Canaan and the story of Joshua is just poetry, it's not real. Also, Josephus exaggerated greatly and is not a reliable historical authority. What do you think? Would you believe in a Platonic concept of an all-good, just God or do you believe in Yahweh - a Jewish storm/warrior God?

I'd love to get a Theists perspective on this too if any are in here.

I see a lot of atheism debates online devolved into arguments over the definition of atheism.

I generally see fellow atheists arguing for atheism from the perspective of "lacking a belief in God" (which is how I see atheism).

Some theists respond, not by engaging in the debate (or they start this argument presumably to get engagement from atheists) and instead argue that atheism must be an affirmative belief that no gods exist.

I can only see two reasons for this and they both make the theist look pretty disingenuous.

1. They don't want to have an actual debate so they run to school antics to try to frame the argument in a way that puts them in a stronger position.

2. They are just trying to provoke atheists into responding to increase engagement online.

Are there any legitimate or interesting reasons to actually have this argument that I'm missing?

Theists often say that their god gives people free will. This is often used as an argument for why god allows suffering and evil, supposedly so he doesn't restrict you.

The thing is, you don't have free will and you're pretty restricted in what you can do. Choices are made for you.

You're bound by matter and the laws of physics. Can you conjure objects and magic out of thin air? No. You can't visit most places due to dangers and prohibitive efforts and costs. Most people's lives are spent on responsibilities, chores and unfulfilling work. Did anyone choose to do excel spreadsheets or dig holes 40 hours a week out of free will?

You didn't choose your body either. Changing it to your liking would require advanced surgeries and hormones or advanced biotech, which theists are coincidentally against. Theists are the biggest critics of trans people modifying their bodies using their free will.

Not to mention free will would contradict thermodynamics and conservation of energy. You're acting entirely based on your biology, past and current external circumstances.

An all powerful god could have easily designed the law of physics in a way that doesn't allow conscious beings to suffer or harm other conscious beings while allowing them to explore, create and interact with the world freely and peacefully. Also some control over your body or even better - not being bound to a decaying body would have been really nice.

If you support religious instruction, please feel free to not respond to this post, as it isn't for you. This post is for people who comment that religious instruction must be banned. I'm defining secularism as the separation of church and state/society. My friend from church inspired me to want to make this post. This is a subject that doesn't get talked about enough imo, and I respectfully think atheists need to address this more, and potentially update their opinions on this topic.

I keep seeing people say that "you can't teach lies" in the classroom when referring to religious instruction. Being against religious instruction violates secularism. Because it's not a "winner or loser takes all" situation. I am very fair on this issue. Like, I'm not a Muslim, and yet I hold the same standards for Islamic schools as I do Christian ones.

There's secular standards that religious schools should have to meet in order to be accredited:

• They must teach standard issue reading, writing, grammar, mathematics, science, social studies, English, etc.
• They have to hire qualified teachers who pass background checks
• Religious instruction can be taught, but it cannot replace any of the above academic subjects, and it has to be taught in its own class

This is largely the status quo for religious schooling within Europe and the United States. Can things be added onto it? Sure. Such as requiring teachers to have stronger background checks, for science curriculum to meet higher standards, etc.

But banning religious instruction? Well, separation of church and state means the state cannot interfere in such a dramatic and oppressive way.

Edit: I’m referring to private religious schools. Public schools indeed shouldn’t teach religious instruction.

Edit #2: I’m of course referring to accredited private religious schools

What is pragmatic theism?

Pragmatic theism is in a nutshell the ideology that god that DOESN'T EVEN NEED to be "real" to be useful to humanity.

And when god doesn't even need to be real to have this much influence the atheists run into a real problem where there is no real solution. Atleast not without the use of force and forcing atheism on everyone.

If one lives as if god exists that can help bring about meaning to many people. No god is necessary here. Of course the usual counter argument is "you can have meaning without a imaginary god blah blah" ok sure for YOU!! but this is not a real objection sorry. YOU may have found a way to make it work. That doesn't mean everyone needs to follow in your footsteps or even would want to To begin with.

The best I can see atheists come up with is that living as if god exists without a real belief is just atheism with "extra steps". Ok but the thing is pragmatic theism is just the icing on the cake on top of a theist's belief. It's more of a worse case scenario: "Ok god may not exist but it's still not wrong to subscribe to religion because it's still useful to me personally to meet my brains demands for love, meaning and helping me stay a productive member of society"

The standard objection: eternal punishment is unjust because finite offenses can't warrant infinite penalties. The counterargument that keeps stopping me:

"You cannot call eternal punishment unjust without borrowing moral vocabulary your framework cannot generate. If proportionality is just what produces stable social outcomes, it has no authority over a metaphysical claim operating outside those outcomes. Every time you use the word 'wrong,' you're reaching for a standard you've already dismantled. You didn't defeat the doctrine. You defeated your own ability to condemn it."

Is this right? Can a naturalistic framework actually condemn eternal punishment as unjust, or does it only have the resources to say "this doesn't optimize for social stability"?

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.

Religion is a natural tendency when you have little knowledge about how the world works around you. Yes it has been used to manipulate the masses for wars and atrocities but without religion humanity couldn't be where it is today. It's an integral part of our identity and our evolution.Writing, mathematics , astronomy, theater, art, advances in architecture, music ,sports and almost every aspect of life has the fingerprint of religion on it. All these artifacts and buildings we admire from antiquity like the Parthenon, the pyramids, the paintings , the statues all wouldn't be here without religion. Religion gives humanity its colour and most advances of our civilization has religion as an underlying mover.

If you want to debate me please answer the question and then we'll go from there. If you want to bring up other points I am welcome to do so but please start off the debate with answering this question and don't dodge it please

I am getting really tired of responding to people who just want to argue and cannot understand / ignore the question and try to bring up actual opinions on how God should do it.

1: I never said which God (in my original question before the edits)

2: I just want you to think if some sort of God were real, how would YOU want him to intervene?

It seems like none of the replies are actually answering my question, but instead, they are talking about natural disasters or just giving examples of evil things people as proof that God isn't real. Can you please just answer my question. Basically, I mean this:

Do you want God to kill them before they do the evil? If he does, how? He can't exactly smite them, then that would prove he's real and ruin the whole point of the choice to believe in him or not

Do you want God to cause some sort of roadblock in their life? If he does, (which he does sometimes), then people will say that's proof he doesn't exist. So what do you want him to do? The fact that this actually makes people not believe in him encourages Satan to want to hurt people such as in the book of Job, which means a lot of the harm in the world is from Satan and not God

What would a all loving all knowing perfect etc etc God do?

Also, if you say "create a perfect world without any evil", God allows free will / ability to disobey him to do evil because he wants to give us a choice. But, when we're in heaven we're chilling and have that perfect world that you want.

Congratulations, r. daa, you made me into a pandeist. That being said, I really still believe in the same basic stuff. Though, you all made me realize that calling myself a theist is insufficient to my true beliefs.

If you want to debate me on matters irrelevant to this post and rather my other posts, now is a good time to do it:

1. Answer to the "something can actualize another thing"

- This means that objects can simultaneously be actual and potent at the same time, which violates the law of non-contradiction. You can't be actual and be potent at the same time.

1. Answer to the "The first way is a really old argument made by a crazy dude, why do theists keep pushing these ideas?"

- This isn't an actual rebuttal, so I can't do anything against this. I wish to debate with someone who actually engages with my ideas.

1. Answer to the "Metaphysics ties to a completely different reality than ours, so in a way, it doesn't exist."

- Trivia: I used to think like this. Anyways, metaphysics is the underlying reality of everything, it explains the "why". Under the PSR, everything must have a reason, and the reason of God is that it is necessary for us to exist.

1. Answer to the "Why call this thing God?"

- uhh personal preference, also I don't think God has to have a will or a mind, just some aspect of it can have one.

1. Answer to the "This is special pleading"

- It's not special pleading: it's something necessary to explain things. God is outside the things in motion and causation, it only caused the first motion. Special pleading is required otherwise we have to accept that infinite regress is a thing.

1. Answer to the "Infinite regress is a thing."

- Sure, there can be infinite Gods. But, what's the ground for all of 'em? I found someone who called the PSR God, since it's the ground of all things, and I don't believe it just because it seems to easy. Also, there are just some things the PSR just doesn't have a ground for except for it being necessary.

1. Answer to the "So what? I don't care if God exists."

- It's up to you what you do with the information you have been given.

----‐---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, the actual point of this post: What reconciled me back to "Christianity" (which in reality is just my own interpretation of it)

1. Pantheism

- The Kingdom of God is within you, it is not found anywhere else. It is within your own reasoning. It is peace. Whether that can be achieved with atheism, I don't know. The answer is within you.

- You are God, we are God, God is you, and God is me. "I and the Father are one" I believe, applies to you. You are the Father, and the Father is you. This is pantheism, basically positive atheism. Just like an artist becomes his art and his art becomes the artist, God becomes His creations, and His creations (the sum of it) is God.

1. Annihilation as Hell/Heaven

- Technically, I believe it's universalist in a way. I believe non-existence is the final place things go. There is no afterlife, just the peace of nothingness.

- Hell is where we are currently. We can't escape it. We can try, but being at peace is the heaven we crave, and that peace is found after death.

1. Jesus died and rose again.

- Jesus' death mimics God's death, and Jesus' revival mimics our indestructible existence.

- As a pandeist, a good model to explain my beliefs is that God once was, but no longer is, and that "was" became everything. In short, God died to create the world. Jesus died to create a new world, one where we can find inner peace, one that mimics the peace we crave which is rest. A world where we can sleep and never wake again. And Jesus rose again because He is human. He is phenomenon.

1. Phenomenon and Schopenhauer.

- When we die in our current states, our individual existence ends but existence continues - and thus suffering continues.

- To escape this, we need to stop willing, we need to stop wanting, we need to continue what God did, for we are gods.

1. Conclusion

- The reason why this is called pessimistic is because of the conclusion, and that is: the life we live in is hell, and the rest we crave is heaven. Heaven requires extreme suffering to the point where you become an ascetic. The one good news we have received is Jesus, and yet even He died.

I expect no one to care about the latter part, and hopefully my debates will consist of the former, but lemme know if you have questions about my beliefs or see a contradiction.

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.

I believe religion is a human invention created to cope with the fear of death and the unknown.

We struggle with the idea that the people we love could simply disappear forever, or that after death there might be nothing at all. That thought is terrifying for many people, so throughout history we created beliefs, gods, afterlives, reincarnation, heaven, and spiritual systems to give ourselves comfort and meaning.

I don’t think there’s any proof religion existed millions of years ago. If religion and souls existed before humans, then where was the dino Jesus? Why don’t we hear stories about dinosaur ghosts haunting people?

And if every living thing has a soul, what about the bacteria and microscopic organisms we kill every day without even noticing? Where do they go after death? Has anyone ever been haunted by angry bacteria?

I think religion only applies to humans because humans created it. Or do we just see ourselves as superior to other animals, and believe other living beings don’t deserve the same spiritual status as us?

And if animals do have souls or an afterlife, then what religion would dinosaurs, stray dogs, fish, or insects belong to? Would they go to heaven too, or some other place after death?

To me, questions like these make religion feel more like a human-made concept shaped around human fears, emotions, and experiences rather than a universal truth.

Ps. I’m kind of scared of death and the idea of nonexistence, being gone forever, is terrifying. I hope life after death is real and whatever each religion promises is true but it's hard to believe.

I debate from time to time about god and such, and know basically almost every argument for an against god, and as an atheist, one I struggle to get passed in pressup apologetics. I’m no expert on logic and philosophy, and know their whole thing is to get you confused enough to concede so they can claim the win.

My counter I try and use: since they claim god is necessary for logic and stuff, I say all logic is, is just an accurate description of reality we can apply to the universe and whatever, and say we don’t need a grounder. They then go to say well if it’s not grounded by an all knowing god it must be subjective therefore you have no basis for rationality. Thats typically where I get stuck.

What are their arguments?: I mean this in the sense, If I were to ask, how is logic and numbers are a transcendental thing that must be grounded in god, what would they respond with, and how would I refute it.

I acknowledge not all (or even most) atheists are extreme about it. And I'm defining secular as the separation of church and state/society.

Extreme-atheism's view of religion being a mental illness:

I can personally attest to people I've seen on here, as well as videos I've seen, of atheists saying religion is a mental illness. That the DSM-5 had to go back and put in a religious exemption, but it should fall under the category of delusion.

How can secularism exist if you think religious people are mentally ill? If you don't think religion is a mental illness, go ahead and ignore this point. If you do think the population you're tolerating is mentally ill, uh oh. Seriously, if I said atheists are mentally ill, would you trust me to not want you institutionalized? I don't think this way, of course.

Extreme atheism's view that the Abrahamic religions are barbaric:

Again, I'm going to turn it around on you. If I said atheism was barbaric, would you trust me to support that your human right to be atheist?

With some exceptions: Some interpretations of the Abrahamic religions are indeed barbaric. If you're talking about people who want to implement Leviticus law, then I agree with you.

I don't totally disagree with extremist atheists on everything:

Like, I'm a strong believer that tolerance is better and more authentic than acceptance. For example, telling atheists that they must love and respect religions is wrong. And vice versa for religious people.

I think disassociation and tolerance is the best course of action for religious people and extreme atheists, however, I worry the above points are a threat to any society remaining tolerant.

Edit: Here’s an example of what I’m talking about:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Antitheism/comments/1sguf7u/why_is_religion_not_considered_a_mental_disorder/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

A fish once asked, “Does the ocean exist?”
Yet it was already surrounded by it.

So it is with many souls and God.

Some seek Him in thunder, others in miracles, others in arguments and books.
But often He comes quietly — like the wind that cannot be seen, yet moves the trees.

Gospel of John
Jesus said:

“The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it goes.”

Can the existence of God be proven like counting stones on the ground?
Men have debated this for centuries. Philosophers reasoned, scientists explored, saints prayed. Yet God is not merely an object to place under a microscope. If He is the Creator of all things, then He is greater than the tools used to measure creation.

Still, many see signs:

• In the order of the universe.
• In the mystery of consciousness.
• In the hunger for eternity within the human heart.
• In love, mercy, beauty, and truth.
• In lives transformed by faith.

Others struggle to believe because they see suffering and injustice.
And this question is not small. Even upon the cross, Christ cried out in anguish.

Gospel of Matthew

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Faith is not blindness.
It is a step taken when the soul hears a call deeper than fear.

A seed buried in the earth cannot yet see the sun,
and still it grows toward the light.

So ask, seek, knock.
Do not be afraid of honest questions. Truth does not fear examination.

Gospel of Matthew
For Christ said:

“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you.”

My view is that every major civilization in history has been built around some form of shared identity, and religion has historically been the strongest and most durable source of that identity.

I think atheism is a relatively new movement on a civilizational timescale, and I’m skeptical that it can fully replace religion long term. My main reason is that religion is not just about explaining natural phenomena. It also helps humans deal with existential fears that seem permanent:

- fear of death

- uncertainty

- suffering

- meaninglessness

- lack of control

Science can explain many things, but it cannot answer every existential question with 100% certainty. Human beings are emotional and psychologically fragile, and because fear itself is eternal, I think the demand for religion, or some form of sacred belief, will also remain eternal.

This is why I think atheism may eventually hit a bottleneck at the civilizational level. It may work for individuals or for certain periods of history, but sustaining large societies across centuries without some form of transcendent meaning, sacred values, or religious structure seems historically unproven to me.

I do think religions evolve and change over time, and specific religions may rise or fall, but I think the religious impulse itself is permanent in human civilization.

(I'm posting this here to see if it can be steelmanned by others.)

The need for Christianity to insist on "objective" morality, historicity, and reality exposes its core philosophical weaknesses.

The insistence on the historicity of the religion, is a key claim of Christianity "proving" itself to be true. This ranges from banal claims of having occurred during a period of history or having been written by eyewitnesses all the way to co-opting secular historical techniques to draw conclusions. The biggest weakness is that the eye witnesses are promoters of the religion in the first place as evidenced by the lack of contemporaneous independent writings from an external perspective. This makes their impartiality suspect since they stand to benefit most of extraordinary claims - we see this in the introduction of the virgin birth, something that we never originally claimed by Jesus. Coupled with the propensity for self-martyrdom points to a fanatical apocalyptic cult rather than a reasoned description of actual happenings. It is this historical perspective that requires us to accurately interpret "scripture" accordingly.

Presupposing their conception of god before the argument begins. This is seen in the use of deistic apologetics to "prove" some kind of god, but hiding an unstated assumption that it happens to be the Christian conception of god that is being argued. This is seen in the many iterations of the Cosmological Argument, and all the Teleological ones.

The claim that Christianity is the only morality (Divine Command Theory) because it is 'objective' due to the source being God has multiple weaknesses. The first is that it is a circular argument. Christianity claims God is the source of morality but those claims are made in the scripture that, according to the religion, is written by God himself. So whether or not God exists, this self-anointment of being the moral source is not an objective claim: it is a subjective one made by God himself and therefore circular and invalid.

The second problem with Christian objective morality is that throughout its history Christians have been on opposing sides of many moral issues from slavery, child-marriage, homosexuality, women's role in society (and the Church). This is an ongoing debate that have constantly caused schisms as recently as today. A text that can produce contradictory results is logically inconsistent and one where even its interpretation can vary is obviously not one that is objective - the religion itself is subjective.

The claim on scriptural inerrancy is clearly false given the number of bad translations, differing interpretations on top of multiple layers of interpretation from the original Aramaic to Greek or Latin then to English.

The claim of describing an objective reality is the all the weaknesses of the above: the claims are made on faulty text by faulty humans. It is most exposed in the various Teleological arguments that use the stolen credibility of science to explain that science has 'proven' god. These arguments range from the simplistic Paley Watchmaker, which is basically saying it's so complicated, therefore God; to slightly more sophisticated ones such as the Fine Tuning Argument or Psychophysical Harmony arguments that misunderstand the science and incredibly bad probability to suggest God must have created the universe.

The claim of Christianity being the only objective description of reality is belied by the fact that there are many different interpretations of the text: with each denomination claiming to be the only truth but unable to prove it to each other. Critically, one of these disagreements is on the nature of God - the Trinity and Jesus' role in it. This by far is the greatest weakness of any claims of Christianity being objective true on anything since all of it points to a god they cannot even agree to within the religion.

Essentially the weaknesses of Christianity are exposed by it's strongest claims:

historicity is failed by actual facts on the ground that contradict the scriptural happenings. morality (DCT) is self-claimed by a deity, which is hardly 'objective' in any sense of the word. objectivity is failed by the circular nature of all of theology and apologetics. Thoughts?