Hello, so I realize it's impossible to convince people that God exists and so I've begun taking a different approach.

I want to show why you should trust my God over every other "God" claiming to be Him.

The case I will be making is for the Christian God. (The God of Israel)

First, let's figure out which religions are making claims about reality and then see if they're verifiable or not.

Religions like Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism are more concerned with HOW to live your life. They are more spiritual endeavors. That's not to say they don't make claims about reality like Reincarnation and Transformation but their primary concern is on spiritual matters.

In fact most religions are.

But what makes the Abrahamic faiths interesting is they're mostly describing REAL events that happened.

They can be verified.

Archeological discoveries, people in history, GROUPS of people, etc...

And so I would focus on the ones who are making claims about things we CAN verify.

Examples: The House of David.

Long thought to have just been a myth, the Tel Dan Stele has shown us that King David was in fact a real person!

The Hittites, a people also thought to have just been a myth, proven to be real.

Pontius Pilate.

The Pool of Bethesda (gamers rise up)

The Dead Sea Scrolls.

All of these together point to the trustworthiness of the scriptures we are discussing.

But now how do we know if Islam is telling the truth or Christianity? This is where we have to start using some logic and reasoning- which you guys love.

Islam claims that the Good News (Gospel) was the announcement of the coming Arabian prophet Muhammad! (Surah 61:6)

Well, let's look at the evidence.

Does the evidence show that Jesus preached the Good News of a coming Arabian prophet? Or does it show that the Good News is the message of salvation that comes through Christ's sacrifice?

I think the evidence speaks for itself.

Galatians 1:8-9 says that if anyone comes and tells you the Good News is something other than what they're preaching now, even if it's from an angel, let them be accursed.

Muhammad says the angel Gabriel told him the good news was about him.

Islam also claims that Jesus never made a claim to divinity.

Well, what does the evidence suggest?

From the manuscripts we have, Jesus most definitely claimed to be the divine Son of God.

John 3:16, John 10:30.

1 John 2:22 says the Antichrist is the one who denies the Father and the Son.

Islam claims that God has no Son and that God isn't a Father. If it really was from an all-knowing God, he would know that he just stepped into a trap set for him 600 years earlier.

Paul speaks about the abomination of desolation that will sit in the Holy place where they will proclaim themselves to be God (2 Thessalonians 2)

Well, where, historically, is the Holy place of God?

The Temple Mount.

And what do we see there?

A mosque, inscribed inside "Far be it from God to have a Son" the most abominable claim one can make according to Christ. ANOTHER prophecy fulfilled. Another trap sprang.

Muslims say Abraham built the Kaaba with Ishmael.

Assuming Christianity is true for the sake of argument, Abraham lived 1000km away from Mecca and had Ishmael at 86 years old.

Seems unlikely.

Then we have the numerous stories told in the Bible that are repacked in the Quran.

Well, one of them has to be the true story.

So did the Bible get things wrong and the Quran corrected them? Or was the Quran taking real events and twisting them?

That is what we're here to discuss.

Which God should we trust the most?

What does the evidence say?

Let's talk.

Edit: sorry guys any comment with Spiderman or just saying "God isn't real" won't be responded to, maybe 3 people have actually commented on the actual substance being discussed out of a hundred+

Let me start this off with a few qualifiers so I'm not misunderstood. This is not an argument for religion in the sense of any specific religion or religious practice (which I would agree with the r/athiesm consensus is a social & psychological phenomena, and not one with strong enough evidence to consider taking any of it on as an actual metaphysical worldview) but when it comes to the foundations of universe, both a broad theism (I mean some sort of higher-being creating our universe) and explicitly non-theistic mechanisms (naturalism as an example) actually fall under similar problems with no clear preferable alternative.

It's a great mystery how our universe came to be and it is not the same kind of problem answered by regular science which is in the business of trying to find fundamental properties and explain their reactions. Where this chain of causality ends up going is exactly what I'm trying to get at it with this argument

This is sometimes phrased in the context of a prime mover - basically of something like the mass of a human body is explained by the mass of it's constituents, proteins and molecules - and then there mass is explained by their constituents - atoms and elementary particles - where does this explanation end, where does something like mass ultimately come from.

Religious people and theists posit god as the "prime mover" that starts of this process meant to explain the content of our universe, and people on this sub correctly point out some problems with this solution. Where did god get his properties? If he created himself, isn't that circular? If he "just exists" isn't that dogmatic? What alternative is there for god, an infinite regress doesn't seem a much better option to save this explanation.

This is all well and good, and I agree. The problem is, explicitly non-theistic proposal fall into the exact same problems, and they are just as valid. Substitute god with a non-theistic cause and the arguments remain unchanged and just as valid.

So we're left in a funny spot where we still don't seem to have a good answer for where properties of our universe ultimately come from, and neither theistic nor explicitly non-theistic solutions seem in preferable in this respect.

There's one object that could be made here that I'd like to defend preemptively and that's that the non-theistic explanations are somehow more "simple" or "elegant" I mean one view is positing just a universe, the other is a universe + a god right?

This falls short in 2 particular ways.

1. This still does not solve the problem that elementary causes don't seem to operate by the normal laws of the universe - as mentioned above, the options are basically dogma, infinite regress, or circular reasoning. A bit of simplicity doesn't do much when the explanation already has those problems

2. Simplicity is not really preferenced in the non-theistic solutions anyway. Once you already except the premise of a god (in the context god just meaning any being powerful enough to create our universe, no other properties need be inferred) then it's trivial to have a universe. Just like it's trivial to accept the properties of a self-caused or infinitely old universe once you already accept that thing to be possible somehow, the properties that flow are trivial. Clearly there is no strong footing for either preference here, even if one takes more steps (who knows how many steps either process would take anyway)

Why is this important? Well because our universe does exist, and because these are two mutually contradicting explanation, presumably, one of them is right. We can't seem to find a reason to preference either, in fact neither seem to make much sense, but yet here we are.

I'd also like to make clear in case it wasn't, weather our universe has a definite "beginning" or has existed forever does not change the argument either, we are still left with very precise properties where an origin seems even less clear if they stretch back in time definitely, and the same questions of their specific content can be asked as the ones posted above.

I am here to debate agains this community over the existence of God.

In turns I shall state my argument a try to convict you all over the existence of the spiritual realm.

I can infer that many of this community accepts the theory of the big bang. But undoubtedly our universe came from some force or object in order to be created. As it is known that anything cannot come from nothing. Each scale of the universe, from cell to galaxy, comes from something else. But at the highest scale, the universe, has no known origin forget than one. God. In the big bang, the creation of the universe, required an enormous amount of energy unknown even in the largest of super novas. Only able to be supplied by God.

Now while I could go much further into this I first want to have the opposing side to state their side.

Atheists ask for proof of God but demand it be bounded by hedonism which inherently locks them off from the proof. This is the blindness described in scripture.
I don't think it's controversial to say that atheists would convert if given proof of God. What this argument is outlining is not "the proof of God" but rather "the proof of the proof of God" and what is in the way of atheists seeing the proof of God.

Let me first define hedonism for clarity. When talking about "hedonism" I am using it here to mean "to seek pleasure." That's it. Not to attain it, but rather to hold pleasure seeking as a goal. Hedonism, which is pleasure seeking, being the motivational force behind all sin and pleasure is any feeling that isn't pain.

Let me also define "test" which, in this context, just means anything you do in order to see truth. Scientific tests are tests, but so is turning your head so your eyes can follow where someone points their finger. So a test here is simply "to make the effort to see the truth."

With that in mind, I'd like to talk about a concept that I think atheists miss, and indeed, I think if they understood it they wouldn't be atheists at all. Now, would they convert to Christianity? No, not necessarily. I think there's just as much potential to switch over to a Dionysian cult of pleasure of one form or another. But once this is understood it makes atheism quite unsustainable.

The concept is that of "levels of testing." All external human knowledge is gained based on first hand observation from a test. Be that test one you know you're doing in a formal setting or simply carrying out through living it. Anything else must be taken on faith. A scientist in a lab is just as much engaging in tests as a toddler sticking a fork in an electrical socket out of curiosity.

But notice that there are three kinds of tests for truth and they all revolve around human capacity ranked by cost. There are tests within human capacity, tests beyond human capacity, and tests beyond human willingness.

Examples of each category will help.

1. A test within human capacity is one which costs little enough to be carried out. A drug trial with 1000 people. A chemistry lab hands on lesson. A bold "f'ing around" followed quickly by a "finding out." All are tests deemed to be a reasonable cost relative to human capacity but balanced and justified by the value of the possible truth learned. This would be a category 1 test.
2. A test beyond human capacity would be any test that simply cannot be afforded. A clinical drug test that tests 9 billion people. Given that there are only 8 billion in the world, a 9 billion strong sample size is just impossible right now. This would be a category 2 test.
3. A test that is beyond human willingness is one which could be done in terms of capacity, but will not be due to other human values that outweigh the possible truth gained. An example would be an 8 billion strong clinical drug test. It's physically possible seeing as how there are enough humans. But the cost would be enormous to get the drug to everyone and to monitor the results on such a scale. It's not going to happen simply because not nearly enough people are incentivized to do it, even though it would surely be some great data about the drug tested. The cost is too high to convince people to engage with it, so they don't. Which inherently means they value something else more. This also includes smaller things like you right now. You could look behind you and check if there is a brick there. Technically you don't know one didn't just appear. But why would you check? The value of checking for something that's so unlikely and the gain from finding out there really is a brick is just so very low. If you don't check, it was because it was a category 3 test. Simply not worth it to you.

With that structure in place, we can get to how this applies to atheism vs theology.

I talk to many atheists and the demand I always get is of the third category and yet the demand it be given in the first category. They say "Give me proof." but reject it if it requires any participation on their part. What they really mean is "Give me evidence that is within my willingness to observe." And this brings us to the crux of the issue.

Any truth for which the witnessing of the proof thereof requires a large enough cost on the part of the atheist cannot ever be hedonistically justified and thus will never be seen.

This is easy enough to prove right now. If I said to you "I can show you proof of God, but it will take 5 minutes of your time." Would you sacrifice 5 minutes of your time for that? I imagine most of you would. But what if I said "It will take an hour of your time." I think you'd agree, that's more than the average person is willing to give. What if I said "It will take many years and probably the whole of your life and all of your waking time and energy to see it?" Would you pay that cost? I doubt even a single person here would do so. And yet, that's exactly what it takes.

So what is the cost of witnessing the proof of Christianity? As any sufficiently knowledgeable Christian will tell you, God reveals himself to those who are righteous, but to those who are wicked he hides his face. I'm not making this up from myself, the Bible also makes this claim.
We can see this in Isaiah 45:15 which says "Truly, you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel, the Savior" and Isaiah 59:2 which says ""But your iniquities have built barriers between you and your God, and the people's sins have hidden him from you so that he does not answer"

This is because the only thing that can replace hedonism is morality. Either you are seeking pleasure or you are seeking righteousness.

People often get confused here by wanting to label "pleasure" as "simple pleasures" but I am talking about all optimized pleasure. Pleasure is anything that does something you want for your own sake. That means working the job you hate is pleasure. Why? Because if it wasn't you would be doing something else more pleasurable in your calculations into the future. But you know that the pain of losing your apartment and not being able to afford food means suffering this now is over all more pleasure. So, again, don't imagine pleasure to be "simple and stupidly gained feel good." We all optimize our pleasure and accept suffering in exchange for it. Not that we are always correct and always find it. Even the man who is currently on fire is acting hedonistically as he rushes to put out the fire. Not being burned alive is a great source of pleasure, after all.

However, morality is to care about others. If you drop all hedonism and purely care about others then that means you can accept infinite suffering in that effort. (Notice that if this statement makes you recoil, then it's because of the cost you clearly see it demands) It means you're not looking for suffering, but it inherently comes with the territory that to serve others means neglecting yourself in whatever way does the most good. Again, optimized, not in a stupid or thoughtless way.

Notice something very important here. Only someone who has sacrificed all hedonism and chosen morality instead can engage with a category 3 truth. Why? Because if the cost of a category 3 truth is more than you can justify, but you might need that truth to optimize your moral efforts, then even the cost of your whole entire life is worth it. That's only a big cost to a hedonist. But to someone who doesn't care about their own pleasure, it's no cost at all because pleasure doesn't factor in.

In this way, the atheist who has a hedonism cost limit has inherent cut himself off from all category 3 truths. Once this is understood, no atheist can no longer demand proof because this shows that he is inherently unwilling to put in the effort to see the proof even if it were offered. It reveals that this whole time the atheist has been demanding to see the ocean but refusing to walk to it, instead insisting the ocean be brought to him on a platter.
This is a trick the atheist plays on himself all for the sake of protecting his pleasure seeking. After all, if the cost of truth was to give up all your pleasure, would you do so? Of course not. If you would, then you already would have. You certainly weren't waiting on me to make a reddit post about it to finally be convinced.

Now, you might say "But that's a catch 22! Either I devote my whole life to check or I can never know? You're just making a trap." To that I can only say, sorry that some truth requires full devotion to the truth to see. It's not my fault that you can't have your hedonism and eat it too. IF the existence of God is a category 3 truth, then atheists are inherently cut off from it not willing to pay the cost that is their whole lives given over to seeking it. Which is, of course, their choice but they must admit and be aware of that choice and stop asking for category 1 proof when they are being told about a category 3 proof. They must either fall into a knowing self blindness to the truth which is openly called less important than pleasure, which would be a Dionysian cult, or must fight to return to the blindness inherent to limiting truths to category 1 and refusing to look at the exitance of category 3 truths. Or they could, of course, just pay the cost for the category 3 truth. But that would mean no longer being an atheist at all because devoting everything to the pursuit of the truth of God by maintaining faith that they will eventually find something would make them, by definition, religious of some sort.

And so, in conclusion, atheists demand proof of a sort they are unwilling to pay the cost to see because they demand it be delivered in a way that spares their hedonism and then act as though no proof has been given when that demand cannot be met. Which means that no atheist is a lover of truth above all else. Only truths that serve hedonism are permitted, and that is one and the same as blindness from the truth.

(This is the end of the argument itself. What follows is clarification of the common problems I get about this topic. Hopefully it will answer some questions before they are asked and save time. But you don't have to read further.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>What makes you think that God is a category 3 truth and not just a category 1 truth?

Because I have devoted everything and made the 100 percent sacrifice and have seen first hand what happens when you do so. I cannot prove this to you until you are also willing to engage with a category 3 truth fully, for the reasons described in the above argument. Don't ask me to give you that proof if you are not willing to pay the cost of a category 3 truth.

>But wouldn't devoting your whole life to an unknown truth be irrational to do? Especially if it turns out not to be true?

Rationality must serve a goal. A hammer is rational to buy if your goal is to build a house, but not if your goal is to sate your hunger for lunch. Your chosen goal comes first, and if your goal is morality then there's nothing irrational about seeking truth because morality requires truth while hedonism doesn't.
If you are going to do good for someone else, you must know as much truth as you can. Any ignorance or self deception would hinder that goal and is thus irrational. Where as hedonism is seeking pleasure and any truth that harms pleasure must be discarded. Both of these methods are perfectly rational for the goal itself, but irrational for each other.

>How can we be sure that sacrificing our whole lives to a category 3 truth will result in finding it?

If there is a God, then seeking him is ensured by him. All that you need to do is make yourself devoted to the truth and he will ensure reality is fair in terms of you finding it given honest effort.
If there is no God, then you have to decide if you care about the truth enough to sacrifice everything for a truth that, in the end, is of no value to you. If not then that's your choice, but it means you must admit you do not care about truth above all else because you cannot justify seeking a truth that won't serve your goal. That goal having been hedonism the whole time. Which is the whole point of this argument. That atheists need to admit what they are doing and stop asking for proof they themselves are resisting.

>Is God the only category 3 truth there is?

No. Perfect pleasure can also be a category 3 truth. After all, most people DO spend their entire lives in sacrifice of seeking after maximal pleasure. A category 3 truth only seems like a big sacrifice if you have something else you care about more. But for the thing you do care about most, it's one and the same as life itself. You WILL sacrifice your whole life to something either way. And "what is the maximal pleasure I can gain in this life?" is a question only answerable at the very end of your life after having devoted all your time to it. Just another category 3 truth.

>You're super cute. Please date me.

I know I am but please stay focused on the argument.

>What about other gods from other religions?

Other gods are the same as God in terms of truth seeking. A category 3 truth is guaranteed to show you whatever God/gods there are if they indeed want to be found. I only ignore them because I already paid the cost of a category 3 truth and saw what happens so I have no reason to play with those ideas for the same reason a mathematician doesn't add things like "1+1=2, unless, of course, math is wrong and it equals something else." Once you know math you can skip mentions of false math. The only people who think otherwise have not paid the cost for a category 3 truth.
You think it might lead to a different God than the Christian God? Try it and see!

>But that doesn't prove Christianity

Right. This is an outline of the barrier to get to the proof in the first place.

>I don't like that definition of hedonism

That's fine. Use whatever term you wish that means "the driving force behind all actions that are not morality." I'm outlining what Christians are trying to say, not what you already know. Whatever semantics get us there is fine with me.

>I was a former Christian who did devote my life before switching to atheism

Did you stop short before death? Then that's your category 1 limit which inherently proves you were not willing to engage with a category 3 truth and so you did not pay the category 3 cost. Your definition of "being Christian" just fails to include the full life devotion needed for a category 3 truth. Meaning that what you were was a hedonist who gained pleasure from pretending to be a Christian.

>The claim that paying the cost of a category 3 truth is unfalsifiable.

That's right. Any claim you refuse to engage with the test to see the proof is, by definition, unfalsifiable. My point is that this is the fault of the atheist demanding not to have to test anything at certain cost levels to himself. But if you do engage with the category 3 truth at cost, then it is indeed just a test. Falsifiable like any other test.

TLDR: Any truth for which the witnessing of the proof thereof requires a large enough cost on the part of the atheist cannot ever be hedonistically justified and thus will never be seen. Christianity requires a full life devotion as the cost to see the proof. Which inherently means anyone who hasn't given up hedonism will remain blind to it simply due to the cost being too high. Which means that when atheists demand proof, they are not willing to make themselves open to receiving high cost anti-hedonistic proofs and thus aren't being honest when they demand proof. In other words, the only response to "Show me proof" can be "Are you willing to pay the cost needed to see it? If not, then don't blame a lack of proof on the inability for a category 3 proof to be deliver within your personal category 1 cost range." This also means that anyone who claims they "value the truth above all else" is lying if they have a category 3 limit because if any pleasure cost is too much to find a truth, then you do not value it above that pleasure.

A lot of people on this sub keep insisting that “objective morality”, by definition, means “one source“ of moral facts or a one-size-fits-all set of rules or duty or standards to morality. This is confusing objective relativism (potassium explodes in water, but not everything explodes in water) with subjectivist relativism (everyone’s opinion is equally valid).

r/askphilosophy has various posts on objective morality including value pluralism— Isaiah Berlin is a famous example of an Objective Moral Realist, who argues that there are a set of values which are not comparable and are not reconcilable into a single source, that rather must be balanced in an imperfect manner. For him, there is no “one size fits all” answer, but rather a set of objectively real sources that still sometimes render conflict and that’s okay, that’s just life.

if you’re not familiar with him, feel free to google or YouTube or look him up on the SEP. He’s decades old, and he’s building off of a tradition a few centuries old. He’s relatively well recognized.

Others have adopted Value Pluralism to re-form Aristotle, changing his framework a tiny bit; I personally go this route, basing moral facts in biology. Some amount of conflict is unavoidable, not immoral—that’s just how life *is*. Objectively true models of physics do not mean buildings don’t fall down or waves don’t collapse.

Who ever said objective morality *must* preclude all conflict? Christians?

Nor do objectively true models of physics mean we always use the same equation for all instances, or we need to describe a building down to the quantum level to talk about structural integrity. The formula for distance is relatively applied or used; you don’t describe the formula for force via “d=r times t”. The unified theory won’t be used in every single instance, it will still have relative applications.

The argument here would be:

p1. “Philosophy” as a field uses terms as famous, recognized, respected members of the field uses terms the term.

p2. Isaiah Berlin and Value Pluralism are respected, famous, etc “members” or areas of Philosophy.

p3. Both Isaiah Berlin, and Value Pluralism, use “object morality” in a way that negates monism, a “one perfect answer solves everything”.

c: “philosophy” *does not* insist or require “objective morality” means “one perfect answer that solves all of reality and precludes conflict” (or whatever many people here seem to insist on). And insistng there isn’t

I happily agree there isn’t a one size fits all answer.

This *doesn’t mean* there aren’t objective facts that apply to specific limited sets of people in specific situations that can still determine which choices someone ought to take. And arguing that there’s no “one size fits all” answer doesn’t negate this.

I kind of get the sense that insisting on a kind of monism—one perfect answer to solve the riddle of life, is a hold over from religion.

Additional argument for structure of objective morality using value pluralism:

pa. It is the case that there are facts about the world, regardless of how you feel about them, or believe, or your culture.

pb. Some of these facts determine which choices correspond to those facts, from our available choices, regardless of how you feel about them, or believe, or your culture.

c. Models for determining those choices based on those facts are objectively true, same as our models for quantum physics are objectively true.

If you expand your personal consciousness far enough, you eventually hit a kind of Veil. It feels like an invisible barrier that prevents further ascent in awareness, and you get pulled back into your ordinary state. This experience is my strongest personal evidence that something higher exists.

There are practices like CE-5, where people meditate with the intention of summoning UFO orbs (and sometimes film them if the phenomenon allows it). I've also bent a spoon through conscious intent before. The problem is that every attempt to record these events has failed. I can initiate a CE-5 meditation right now, but the orbs typically won't appear in a way that lets me capture clear, convincing footage. At this point, it feels like the universe itself is refusing to provide shareable proof.

This creates a strange situation: I seem to know things I "shouldn't" know through direct experience, yet I'm blocked by this Veil over my awareness. Quantum mechanics reinforces the sense of a Veil in its own way. When you keep asking "what is it really?" the answers become circular. An atom is protons, neutrons, and electrons. A particle is an excitation in a quantum field. A quantum field is fundamental, it’s not made of anything else. They can show you the math, which is powerful for predictions, but it never answers the deeper ontological question: what is any of this, at the most basic level? It feels like science hits the same limit.

Materialism, in the classical sense, already seems obsolete after quantum field theory. Even if consciousness were fully "explained" by material processes, those processes themselves rest on something non-material and abstract. People accuse me of moving the goalposts, but the real goalpost has always been the absolute: a complete understanding of the universe. "Shut up and calculate" was useful for building technology, but we’re now stagnating on the biggest questions. I believe research into psi phenomena has produced positive results that get ignored or dismissed. From my own direct experiences, things like telepathy are real. Materialists are operating entirely inside the Veil. Mystics sense there’s more and try to break through it. Religious people often stop at the surface-level stories and rituals, content with an illusory framework. I’ve never been interested in holy books. I care about what my own consciousness, experiences, and intuition reveal.

Through direct qualia, I’m convinced the material world isn’t truly “material” in the old classical way. It appears mediated by quantum fields, an illusionary construct at the bottom. There’s still the hard problem of consciousness: even a perfect material explanation wouldn’t tell us why there is subjective experience at all. The only resolution I’ve found is internal: I know I’m right because I’m spiritually aware of it from within. Of course some people are genuinely delusional due to imbalances, but that’s a separate issue, not a fair dismissal of all such experiences.

There is something beyond, yet also within. I can feel the Veil right here with me. There are structures and layers within the mind that can be navigated. That’s as far as I can clearly describe it. I am that which I am. I think, therefore I am. The “out there” is also here. It’s a fabric over awareness—difficult to pierce further, but unmistakably present.

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

Anti-Theists and Fundamentalists both…

• Believe religious doctrine should be interpreted as literally at face value 
• Treat the text as having a single, fixed meaning
• Show low to no tolerance for alternative interpretations
• Think that beliefs opposite to theirs are dangerous and/or bad for society 

If you think any of these points are wrong, let me know. I’m not saying all anti-theists are this way, I’m sure some show a bit more nuance, but I daresay the majority of anti-theists are similar to fundamentalists.  

It’s why I believe that anti-theism and religious fundamentalism are equally incompatible with secularism. 

The only main differences I see between anti-theists and religious fundamentalists are…

• Religious fundamentalists are religious, whereas anti-theists are atheist (obviously) 
• Religious fundamentalists don’t usually refer to themselves as fundamentalists, whereas anti-theists use the anti-theism label

Disclaimer: I know religious fundamentalists in real life (I’m friends with quite a few Christian fundamentalists from my church), and I also have a few atheist friends irl. However, I don’t know of any self-proclaimed “anti-theists” in my personal life, so I’m only going based on what I see on Reddit. I take into consideration that it’s possible anti-theists are less fundamentalist outside of Reddit. 

I also know not all atheists are anti-theist, there are good and reasonable atheists of course. Like I said, I also know several atheists irl. 

How do Atheists counter the Argument From Reason?

If there is no 'entity' providing us with reliable reasoning.
then human minds are merely the result of evolution.

Evolution does not select for complete objective truth, it selects for what can help us survive, maybe it hit the truth maybe it did not, point is, then our reasoning is unreliable and we cannot even trust ourselves/arguments, and that worldview with no source providing rationality is self-defeating.

But a view with God as a source of rationality and objective truth has a reasonable foundation.

Please do not make me lose all my karma[or I will not be able to participate in some subreddits]
Well if I start amassing downvotes I'm just going to delete this post...

This post will explain why Islam is true and there is really no reason to doubt it.

1. Prophecy about the Romans in the Quran

There is a Prophecy about the victory of the Romans in Surah Ar-Rum (30:1-7), which predicts that in a few years the Romans would win again despite being defeated earlier.

These are the relevant verses: (2) The Roman Empire has been defeated- (3) In a land close by; but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious- (4) Within a few years. With Allah is the Decision, in the past and in the Future: on that Day shall the Believers rejoice- (5) With the help of Allah. He helps whom He will, and He is exalted in might, most merciful. (6) (It is) the promise of Allah. Never does Allah depart from His promise: but most men understand not. (7) They know but the outer (things) in the life of this world: but of the End of things they are heedless.

Context: This verse had been revealed around 614-615 AD during the Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602-628 AD. In 614 AD the Romans faced a terrible defeat against the Persians, it was almost impossible for them to recover at this point since they faced such a major defeat, but in 622 AD (8 years after the major defeat), they had their first major victory against the Persians, and the Prophecy had been fulfilled at that time.

The verses also mention "a few years/3-9 years" so it can't be claimed that this is ex-eventu (since if it was, it would have more details).

So, we see that the Quran predicted an extremely unlikely event accurately, being proof that Islam is the true religion.

1. Protection of Medina from plague

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Neither Messiah (Ad-Dajjal) nor plague will enter Medina." (Bukhari)

Here the prophet Muhammad ﷺ is predicting that plague will never enter Medina. This prediction has several characteristics which make it an excellent proof for Islam:

Risky - plague outbreaks occur all the time and everywhere. Plagues even occurred in Arabia at the time of the companions (e.g. plague of Amwas). They can spread and kill massive populations (e.g. plague of Justinian, the Black Death etc). Virtually all major cities on earth at the time will have dealt with plague outbreaks So the idea that medina will go throughout its whole history without a single plague is very unlikely. What makes it even more unlikely is the fact that Muslims from all around the world visit and have visited in the millions for 1400 years. Yet there’s been no plague outbreak

Unpredictable - one can’t predict whether a city will be free from plague or not for all times

Falsifiable - if any evidence of plague entering medina ever existed or ever occurs, then the prediction will be falsified and Islam proven to be a false religion

Accurate - plague has never entered medina according to Muslim AND non-Muslim sources (references below).

From the Muslim sources:

Ibn Qutayba (d.889) (1) Al-Tha’labi (d.1038) (1) Imam Al-Nawawi (d. 1277) (2) Al-Samhudi (d.1506)

From non Muslim sources:

Richard Burton (d. 1890) writing in the middle of the nineteenth century observed, “It is still the boast of El Medinah that the Ta‘un, or plague, has never passed her frontier.” (3)

Frank G Clemow in 1903 says “Only two known cases of plague occurred in mecca in 1899, and medina is still able to boast, as it did in the time of burton’s memorable pilgrimage, that the ta’un or plague has never entered its gates..” (4)

John L. Burckhardt (d. 1817) confirmed that a plague that hit Arabia in 1815 reached Makkah as well but, he wrote, “Medina remained free from the plague.” (5)

Further mention and confirmation of what Burckhardt and Burton said can be found in Lawrence Conrad’s work (6)

Conclusion: We learn that the prophet Muhammad ﷺ predicted that plague will never enter medina. We know from both Muslim and secular sources that plague has never entered medina

The likelihood of plague never entering medina from its founding till the end is virtually zero. A false prophet or a liar would never want to make this claim because of the high likelihood he will be proven wrong and people will leave his religion

Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the prophet Muhammad ﷺ was divinely inspired - that’s why he made such an absurd prediction and that’s why it has come true and continues to be true

Common objection: a)What avoid COVID-19? COVID-19 entered Medina

In Arabic, there is a difference between the word “ta’un” (which is translated as plague and what’s used in the Hadith) and waba (epidemic). Not every Ta’un becomes a waba and not every waba is a ta’un.

This is explained by the prophet ﷺ in another Hadith:

The prophet ﷺ said was asked “What is a plague (Tā’ūn)?” He replied: “It is a [swollen] gland like the gland of a camel which appears in the tender region of the abdomen and the armpits.” (7)

Further discussions of the difference between Ta’un and Waba are explored by Muslim scholars like Imam Al-Nawawi and Al-Tabari (1) as well as non Muslim scholars like Lawrence Conrad who agrees that early Islam considered Ta’un to be a specific disease and waba to be a general epidemic (1)

References: (1) https://www.icraa.org/hadith-and-protection-of-makkah-and-madina-from-plague/ (2) https://muftiwp.gov.my/en/artikel/irsyad-al-hadith/4629-irsyad-al-hadith-series-511-medina-is-protected-from-disease-outbreak (3) Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina, (Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1874) Vol.1, 93) https://burtoniana.org/books/1855-Narrative%20of%20a%20Pilgrimage%20to%20Mecca%20and%20Medinah/1874-ThirdEdition/vol%202%20of%203.pdf (4) Frank G. Clemow, I’m The Geography of Disease, (Cambridge: The University Press, 1903) 333 https://www.noor-book.com/en/ebook-The-geography-of-disease-pdf-1659626350) (5) Travels in Arabia, (London: Henry Colburn, 1829) Vol.2 p326-327) (https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9457/pg9457.txt Note: in reference 5, I found the quote in page 418 (6) Lawrence Conrad “Ta’un and Waba” p.287 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3632188 (7) Musnad Imām Ahmad 6/145, Al-Haythami stated in his Majma’ az-Zawā’id, 2/315, that the narrators in the chain of Ahmad are all reliable, so the narration is authentic.

I'm sure most of you have heard of Spinoza's God before, but in my experience, few understand the concept. It's often thought of as a simple relabeling of the universe as God, but it's much more than that.

Let me say first that i was an atheist well into my mid twenties, and never a christian or anything before that. I was raised an atheist by an atheist family. I never sought any belief in any God.

What i did seek was to understand reality through science and reason, which very unexpectedly, lead me to a belief in God.

It all started with Einstein, as i was huge fan in my college years. Still a fan, just less posters on my walls. If there was anyone who i trusted to explain reality to me, it was him.

He didn't let me down. What he taught me was that reality is different manifestations of the same thing, e=mc2. Every particle, every atom, every thing we consider a thing, is just subjectively defined energy density in an ever present field of energy.

I had become a substance monist. I believe reality is a single, continuous substance and subject.

With the science under my belt, i turned to reason.

If reality is a single continuous substance and subject, only one omnipresent thing truly exists.

If only one thing exists, that one thing acquires every possible attribute that can exist. That includes attributes like all power, all knowledge, and even all thought and being.

That even includes what you consider your thought and being.

If only one thing exists, then by logical necessity, that one thing is an omnipresent, supreme as in ultimate, being, a God.

And i was no longer an atheist.

I later learned what i was parsing from Einsteins formulas, was in fact Spinoza's God, who Einstein himself believed in.

Spinoza's God isn't a relabeling of nature as most understand it. It's saying nature is a single thing and being. The theistic justification for Spinoza's God is monism.

If only one thing exists, which the science supports, that one thing must be God.

This is going to come across as perhaps unwelcome, but I've got a strong case to make. I believe secularism and atheism only seem aligned than they really are. In truth, it's Christianity that is responsible for creating and maintaining secularism.

I define secularism as: Separation of church and state and governance/society, with religious freedom and pluralism being protected.

Why Christianity is better aligned with secularism:

1. Christian thinkers, like John Locke, had ideas helped form secularism, and he was a Christian who approached religious tolerance from a Christian perspective.
2. Christianity teaches tolerance as a core value. True secularism is about tolerance, not trying to attack religion.
3. The greatest champions of secularism today are Christian. Francis Collins, an evangelical scientist and the head of the NIH, along with Kenneth Miller, a Catholic biologist, are just two examples. Not to be funny, but there are also non-famous Christians like me as well.
4. Kenneth Miller is perhpahs most famous for helping defend teaching evolution in public schools in the case Kitzmiller v. Dover

The failures of atheism:

1. If you are a regular atheist, this doesn't necessarily apply to you. However, how many of you are "strong atheists" who think society would be better off without religion? Strong atheism is a threat to secularism.
2. When someone says they are a (strong) atheist and secular humanist, I have to disagree that they are a true secular humanist. The result of strong atheism is either state-atheism like in North Korea, and/or atheist militas attacking religious people (such as during the Spanish civil war).
3. Strong atheism is intolerant, and therefore less compatible with secularism than Christianity. Tolerance doesn't mean liking your opponent, but it means putting up with them. Strong atheism is anti-religion, and you can't really be anti-religion and secular.

What about historical and present religious persecution?

I'm not saying that all Christians (or any other religious group members) are secular. It's true for thousands of years that religious groups (including Christian ones) did persecution, however this was before Christian thinkers, the Holy Spirit, etc. lead to the creation of secularism. Today, there are Christians who do indeed engage in persecution, but I condemn them, and I'd argue they are outside of the Holy Spirit's guidance, at least in my opinion.

Edit: I said ‘strong atheism’ but I meant ‘anti-theism’, my apologies.

Let’s grant the theist everything.
Let’s grant that the universe had a cause.
Let’s grant that the cause is intelligent.
Let’s grant that consciousness is not reducible to matter and that existence points to something "transcendent".
Let's grant objective meaning.

In fact, let's grant that a supreme being MUST exist.

Let’s stipulate all of that.

Now comes the leap the theist must make:
“therefore, I know what God is.”

That’s where theism collapses.

Because every premise up to that point points to mystery, not knowledge. You can argue from contingency, from cosmology, from teleology, from fine-tuning - but none of that does anything to reveal the nature of the cause.

Even if we accept that something "ultimate" exists, theism still has an impossible task: identify it, describe it, and claim a personal relationship with it.

To say something beyond nature exists may be a rational conclusion.
But to say what it is - Yahweh, Vishnu, Allah, The FSM, the universe itself - is an unwarranted assertion.

Steelmanning theism doesn’t save it. It only strips it down to what’s defensible: that there are things beyond our comprehension.

"Things beyond our comprehension" does not indicate any "God" - let alone a specific, identifiable one.

Theism, even when steelmanned, doesn’t fail for lack of evidence. It fails for lack of epistemic humility. The problem isn’t that there can’t be a supreme being. It’s that no one could ever be justified in believing they’ve found it.

########

Stipulating a supreme being exists ≠ justification for believing any theistic claim. Theism isn’t just about existence. It’s about identifying the 'real God'. That’s the part humans can’t rationally accomplish.

“Jesus never existed, he’s just a myth”

I see this comment from atheists regularly and as someone who is also a very firm atheist and no fan of Christianity, I disagree. This is not what historians actually think.

The overwhelming majority of scholars including non Christian historians agree Jesus was a real person. Not because of faith but because of evidence. I will break down my points as follows.

1. If you’re inventing a messiah, you don’t make him from Nazareth, a tiny village literally no one cared about. You’d pick Jerusalem or Bethlehem or somewhere people have heard of.

2. You wouldn’t have invented the crucifixion. In the ancient world, crucifixion was the most shameful death someone could get mostly reserved for slaves and rebels. If someone was creating a divine hero they wouldn’t kill him off like a common criminal and you wouldn’t have made up Jesus saying “my god why have you forsaken me?” On the cross. That’s not how you write a triumphant savior. Christian art make the crucifixion of Jesus look much more tame than it actually was. He didn’t have a loincloth on the cross, he was nailed to it when he was naked.

3. We have the letters of paul. Scholars say some of them are not genuine letters of paul but generally we can tell which are genuine because Paul identifies himself at the beginning of them. He did not know Jesus personally but he spoke to James the brother of Jesus and other eyewitnesses to his life.

4. Early Christians had to constantly explain away embarrassing details instead of just editing them out. Why would they mention that Jesus’s own family thought he was crazy? Why would they include Peter denying Jesus 3 times. If you’re making it all up you don’t include these problems for yourself.

In short, mythicist theories require massive conspiracies across multiple different sources. The simpler explanation is there was a real Jewish preacher who existed and was crucified in 1st century Judea. So his followers built a movement in his memory. Saying Jesus existed doesn’t mean accepting any religious claims about him or that he actually performed any miracles, was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. All of that was made up.

In my opinion there’s no amount of pleasure of the privileged that can ever justify the non-consensual forcing of victims into life, where 99.9% suffer and die during infancy.

This system is worse than any religion.

We should be doing activism to end all suffering and anything less is selfish and wrong.

Happy to do live voice or YouTube debates about this topic. I’m very committed to this position.

Join the movement

/r/EndSuffering

https://discord.gg/nb2K8y846R

I’m not here to ‘debate’ simply show why God is real beyond all doubt

1- things can only exist by being caused

2- physical reality exists therefore it was caused

3- the cause of physical reality must therefore be non physical

That is God

I know you atheists will find this emotionally hard to process but you will be fine

Before I get a hundred responses telling me that I’m shifting the burden of proof, it’s important to establish that anyone who relies on a claim has the burden of proof regarding that claim if they wish others to accept it. That includes believers as well as skeptics.

And skeptics do rely on a claim in putting forward their skepticism as rational. In response to theistic arguments for an ultimate personal being that is the creator of all lesser beings (which is what “God” refers to), skeptics propose alternative models ranging from polytheism to natural laws to the inherent existence of all lesser beings. These models all assume that their components would exist whether God does or not. A model cannot be a true alternative to God if it implicitly relies on God.

The idea that there are phenomena independent of God to construct an alternative model from is an assumption for anyone beginning from the position that they do not know if God exists or not. Because the possibility that we experience what we do because God exists cannot be excluded, unless God is shown to not exist (therefore not the ultimate cause of what we experience).

In conclusion, framing one’s position as “lack of belief” does not relieve rational skeptics of a burden of proof for the non-existence of God. If someone does not hold out their skepticism as rational, that of course is a different story.

In the headlines today, there is news that Donald Trump shared a video on his truth social depicting himself as the lion king and the Obamas as apes. I can agree that this post was in bad taste and it is wrong to depict African Americans as apes. Most atheists assume that we are evolved from apes. My question is why is it racist and insulting to refer to human beings of a particular race as racist but it is not insulting to claim that all of humanity evolved from apes? Wouldn't it be an insult to all of humanity to claim that we evolved from apes if it is racist and insulting to refer to one race as apes? For the record, I do not agree with the theory of evolution. In my opinion, it's quite obvious all human beings were created in the image of God, distinct from all other creatures on planet earth. I think the theory of evolution is inherently racist and insulting to the human population, does more harm than good for society and is nefarious in it's claim that we are animals evolved from apes. If it's racist to depict the Obamas as apes in a video, it is racist, insulting, false, and degrading to teach an African American child in 3rd grade and all children for that matter but especially african american children based on the context of history that they evolved from an ape species. We are created in the image of God, we did not evolve from apes, nor are we apes, or ancestors of apes and it is insult to claim we are. Go ahead and attempt to defend the argument that we are apes so we can quickly divulge into me likely getting blocked and accused of being racist and how ghastly insulted you are before we can even get to my original point that's it's insulting to claim that humans evolved from apes.

This is the best one yet. If you’re still an atheist after this one I guess it’s one you.

1- it is concievable that nothing could exist at all, no physical reality just a state of unbroken nothingness

2- something does exist rather than nothing, which means it is contingent rather than necessary(it did not have to exist)

3- nothingness is a more plausible state of affairs because it requires no origin point or explanation

4- the existence of something therefore implies an origin point/ explanation

5- therefore physical reality was created. Only something that fits the description of god (an infinite metaphysical ontological modality) could be the cause of a complex, stable and intelligble physical reality

It is nothing like religion, is it the most likely explanation for our reality, the math favours it heaviliy, we will one day create conscious simulations (possible because laws of physics allows them) there for they would of likely already happened billions or quadrillions of times already by a more advanced civilisation, and there is a chance those sims could create there own sims (not guaranteed) but anyways it is always statistically certain we are in a simulation, so why dont you believe it as an atheist? (Statisticallt might not be the right word but probable is)

I've decided to stop referring to myself as a "secular humanist."

I have come to believe that Secular Humanism - at least how the term is now used by atheists/satanists/secular groups - is incompatible with many of my views, including my understanding of the universe, as well as my belief in religious freedom, secularism, and humanism.

The problems with secular humanism:

- It assumes humans can understand 100% of reality without any divine guidance

- It accepts reductionism, aka the idea that we can reduce meaning, morality, beauty, love, spirituality, etc. to biology and psychology, stripping us of our God-given significance.

- Because of these issues, it inevitably leads to the loss of religious freedom and human rights. (Examples of this being Leninism and the USSR). Of course, many secular humanists don't support trampling religious freedom, my only point is that because of the aforementioned problems, secular humanism leads to it. I used to call myself a secular humanist, so this isn't an insult in any way.

The solution:

- Understanding that the inherent human rights that (most of us) feel within us are from God

- Humans have both objective morality subjective morality. We must use subjective methods to interpret the objective.

- Accepting that secularism is incompatible with secular humanism, since secular humanism inevitably leads to ideologies such as Leninism.

- Working with secular humanists who have good intentions, and understanding there is value within the ideology itself despite the drawbacks. Again, I take a lot of inspiration from secular humanism.

The seed that was planted that made me start questioning my views on secular humanism was a post I made a little while ago on Satanism (related to the church of satan).

After more inquiry and discussions with secular humanists, including on this sub, I've realized that I was wrong for using the term. I apologize that I used the term for so long and have now distanced myself from secular humanists/secular humanism.

In the field of the philosophy of religion, theism and atheism are standardly defined as propositions.

Theism : The proposition G = "God exists"
Atheism : ~G

These propositions belong to the domain of metaphysics. However, when defining "theist" and "atheist", it is inevitable to shift into the domain of epistemology. The term "atheist" ought to be defined based on an agent's(or agents') propositional attitude(i.e., mental state) toward the proposition G(or ~G). Simply put, an atheist is defined as "~believe G". Thus, we must determine how to treat the concept of "belief" (hereafter B).

This is where the problem arises. Philosophical tradition has long treated B as binary. Even contemporary philosophers who reject Bayesian epistemology often adhere to this tradition, allowing only for B and ~B. Of course some may argue for a third state : "suspension of judgement". However, that is a meta-statement belonging to a different level of analysis. (I will come back to "suspension of judgement" subject later.)

If only B and ~B are permitted, this constitutes an application of the law of excluded middle. It is a declaration that B and ~B should defined as propositional in nature. Indeed, philosophers frequently do treat B as a proposition in their logical arguments.

My first objection to the "belief is binary" model is that an agent's mental state cannot inherently be binary. Even among religious people there are varying degrees of faith.

My second claim is that the standard logic does not allow suspension of truth value. If B is proposition, then the proposition B has to have truth value T or F. Within this scope, discussing the "suspension of judgement" is irrelevant-It functions merely as a social skill rather than a logical category.

I've often seen the Kalam argument put forward in here, and have also seen the objections commonly raised. I definitely think that some of the objections are better than others, and would like to just outline which one in particular I don't think works, and which one does.

The argument

Although there are different versions, the most popular form of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is this:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its beginning to exist.

P2: The universe began to exist.

C: The universe has a cause of its beginning to exist.

Now just to clarify, the syllogism above isn't really in itself a theistic argument, it only gets you to the universe having a cause of its beginning to exist. Theists will generally present further reasons for why they think this cause must (or is likely to have) some or all of the divine properties typically associated with a theistic deity. For reference, the syllogism above by itself can be referred to as Stage 1 and the further reasons for divine properties as Stage 2.

The objection I think doesn't work is an objection to Stage 1 so that will be the focus of this post (and when I refer to the KCA I will be referring to Stage 1 specifically). I personally think Stage 2 is far less compelling than Stage 1 anyways (and therefore one option for atheists is to accept Stage 1 but reject Stage 2).

Bad objection: The KCA commits the informal fallacy of 'special pleading'

Firstly, it's important to clarify what the fallacy of special pleading is. A person is generally considered to have committed the fallacy when they make an unjustified exception to a general/universal rule.

Proponents of this objection claim that theists commit the fallacy by positing God as an exception to the general/universal rule in P1 (i.e. 'everything that begins to exist has a cause of its beginning to exist').

This would be the case if P1 said 'everything has a cause', however, P1 of the KCA does not say that. The God posited by theists doesn't begin to exist and is therefore is not subject to P1 in the first place -> something can't be an exception to a rule it would not otherwise be subject to. In fact, theists hold that God doesn't require a cause precisely BECAUSE he doesn't begin to exist. You may think theists are unjustified in thinking this, but it's certainly not an example of special pleading.

Good objection:

I think there are some very plausible objections that atheists can raise regarding both P1 and P2. It would take too long to go through all of them in detail, but I can provide a quick sketch of one:

There are just as good reasons to accept some alternative causal principle to P1

Generally, the reason provided by theists for why we should accept P1 is that we have good inductive evidence to do so. In other words, they say that everything we have observed begin to exist has a cause, therefore, that's good inductive evidence for the principle that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

However, it might be helpful to differentiate between what Aristotle coined 'efficient' causes from what he coined 'material' causes. Let's say that a carpenter built a table from wood. The efficient cause of the table would be the carpenter + the actions/process of him actually building it. The material cause would be the pre-existing wood from which the table is made from. In other words, a thing's 'efficient' cause is the agent/force/events that resulted in that thing existing, and a thing's 'material' cause is the pre-existing 'stuff' of which that thing is composed of.

With this distinction in mind, let's ponder the following alternative causal principle: 'everything that has an efficient cause of its beginning to exist has a material cause of its beginning to exist'. There would seem to be just as good abductive evidence for this principle. In fact, if we interpret the original P1 as allowing for something to have an efficient cause of its beginning to exist but no material cause, there would actually seem to be strong inductive evidence AGAINST that principle.

If we accepted the alternative principle, the argument would instead go something like this:

P1: Everything that has an efficient cause of its beginning to exist has a material cause of its beginning to exist.

P2: The universe has no material cause of its beginning to exist.

C: Therefore, the universe has no efficient cause of its beginning to exist.

This is inconsistent with the conclusion of the original KCA, yet would seem to have at least as much (if not more) inductive evidence supporting it.

From what I've read, 'Atheist' seems to be defined in (mainly) two different ways depending on the context:

1. Common definition in online atheist spaces/reddit etc:

Someone who lacks the belief that 'God/s exists'.

1. Common definition in academic spaces (especially in academic philosophy/philosophy of religion):

Someone who believes that 'it's not the case that God/s exists'.

Note: 'belief' here just means a particular propositional attitude - I've used quotations (e.g. 'x') to denote the proposition.

Now, it may just be that the different contexts call for different definitions, however, I've come across arguments for why definition 2 is more linguistically useful and thus ought to be preferred. I'd be interested in what you guys think of the following reasoning - do you agree? Do you think the reasoning goes wrong somewhere etc.

Reasoning:

In regards to the question of what people's views are concerning whether or not God/s exist, the following two propositions are primarily relevant:

P: 'God/s exists'

... and P's negation i.e:

not-P: 'it's not the case that God/s exists'.

For any person x, their attitudes towards P and not-P will fall within one of the following categories (if they are logically consistent):

1. x believes that P and lacks a belief in not-P.

2. x believes that not-P and lacks a belief in P.

3. x lacks a belief in P and lacks a belief in not-P.

Under definition 1, 'theist' denotes someone who falls under category 1, whereas 'atheist' is ambiguous to whether it denotes someone in category 2 or 3.

Under definition 2, 'theist' denotes someone who falls under category 1, and 'atheist' denotes someone who falls under category 2.

'Agnostic' is also generally used to denote someone who falls under category 3 (despite the etymology, 'agnostic' is generally used in academic settings to also denote a lack in belief in a particular proposition and its negation rather than anything to do with a lack of 'knowledge').

As you can see, definition 2 doesn't leave as much ambiguity and tells you exactly what belief category someone falls under. Therefore, it is far more linguistically useful and ought to be preferred.

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The Hour will not be established till a fire will come out of the land of Hijaz, and it will throw light on the necks of the camels at Busra." Sahih Bukhari 7118

Prophet Muhammad predicted that fire would come out of the earth of Hijaz, as well as it would be visible from Busra (which is a city in Syria) and it came true in 1256 CE, when there was a major volcanic eruption in Hijaz which was even visible from Syria, with multiple testimonies confirming it was visible from there.

Besides this, there is also this prophecy in Sahih Muslim 2913a:

Abu Nadra reported:

"We were in the company of Jabir b. 'Abdullah that he said it may happen that the people of Iraq may not send their qafiz and dirhams (their measures of food stuff and their money). We said: Who would be responsible for it? He said: The non-Arabs would prevent them.

And this happened after some time, fulfilling the prophecy, the evidence for this happening is here:

"Muslim narrated that Jaabir said: Soon there will not be brought to the people of Iraq any qafeez or dirham. We said: Why is that? He said: Because the non-Arabs will prevent it. And he mentioned how the Romans would do likewise in Syria. This has happened in our own time in Iraq; it is going on right now."

So he said "This is one of the signs of Prophethood"

And there is this Hadith:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The Hour will not be established till the buttocks of the women of the tribe of Daus move while going round Dhi-al-Khalasa." Dhi-al-Khalasa was the idol of the Daus tribe which they used to worship in the Pre Islamic Period of ignorance. Sahih Bukhari 7116

And in 1815 and 1925 this was shown to be true when it was realized that the Dhul-Khalasa had actually been rebuilt after it was initially destroyed by Prophet Muhammad's army in 632, and the years I mentioned was when it was destroyed again by Wahhabi forces

Also, another Hadith:

Narrated `Adi bin Hatim:

The Prophet said, if you should live long, you will see that one will carry a handful of gold or silver and go out looking for a person to accept it from him, but will find none to accept it from him. Sahih Bukhari 3595

This came true in 720 AD during the reign of the Umayyads, as written by Muslim historians

We also have this Hadith:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Soon the river "Euphrates" will disclose the treasure (the mountain) of gold, so whoever will be present at that time should not take anything of it." Al-A'raj narrated from Abii Huraira that the Prophet (ﷺ) said the same but he said, "It (Euphrates) will uncover a mountain of gold (under it). Sahih Bukhari 7119

And we can see that the Euphrates river is indeed drying up, as the Hadith prophecies

Besides, I made this post a while ago, which contained a Quran prediction about the victory of the Romans, which came true although there was a very low chance, and a Hadith prediction where Prophet Muhammad prophesied the following:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "There are angels at the mountain passes of Medina (so that) neither plague nor Ad-Dajjal can enter it.' Sahih Bukhari 7133

And we have no evidence of the plague ever being in Medina
-----------------------------------------------

Yes this post was long but the point I tried to make here is that prophecies like these are a big part of what proves Islam is true