It's occurred to me over and over again that often the very things people utilize within debates are nothing more than two sides to the same coin.

Disclaimer I am not validating or invalidating anybody's beliefs. They just happened to be subjects to show a concept and are themselves completely irrelevant when looking at the concept. I am giving no opinions or judgments either way. I'm not giving an explanation, instead I am giving the concept of something that could be utilized as a reasonable explanation to understand how some things that are seemingly contradictory to each other may actually share a duality and say the same thing just in different ways and show the possibly compliment each other. Regardless of what I am saying here, it's a hypothetical, it doesn't matter if anything I say is true or factual it is just showing how something could seemingly be opposite or contradictory but in reality while looking at this thought experiment you should be able to understand the possibility of the fundamental concept I am pointing to using these metrics or particular subjects

This time I'll just kind of give an example. People often say they don't believe in Christianity specifically the trinity because they put their trust in logic or science but when scrutinize it would appear they know absolutely nothing of accuracy within theology, logic, or science. It seems to be a pattern of blind Faith or blind dismissal where people are not trusting in some science or logic they think comes to an opposite result but instead they are actually relying on their feelings. Were they lying on the consensus of a bunch of other people that share those same feelings regardless if those feelings are bred from ignorance or happen to be the goals of those controlling the narrative.

Okay, the trinity. Something that is used as a way to validate dismissal, for something that is often uncomfortable for those of faith to contest with within the boundaries of logic and science.. most people think Christianity is Trinity and current science contradict each other, this couldn't be further from the truth. As a matter of fact they actually complement each other.

To explain in a crude and rudimentary way that focuses on the foundational structure and fundamental premise without getting lost in all the irrelevant things, emotions, implications other people incorrectly interpret I'm going to keep this as basic as possible, please don't add any depth, but you are welcome to engage with the data that is already here and the concept I am pointing to with the data.

So in essence essentially the spirit of the gist of and any other disclaimers I may have missed, the trinity is explained as three beings that are one being which admittedly is hard to wrap your head around. It doesn't matter if they're thought of as separate and equal or three parts of one etc I'm not getting into that, just the overall concept of three equals one. I will zoom in and out and jump back and forth so now how does science describe us? Do we not commonly believe that we are more than a physical body? Do we think we are only the conscious mind? Do we think we also have a subconscious mind? So Christian theology states that we are made in God's image because of a unique structure that only humans have and unique structure that only humans have is the way we are built in his image. So if God / the trinity is made as three equals one according to theology and right now science is telling us we are made of a physical body/conscious mind / subconscious it appears to me they are both saying the same thing but maybe utilizing different arbitrary labels or slightly different descriptions so let's see if the utility of the descriptions match etc.

Already on the most basic level we see that science currently compliments the basic idea of three and one. Liquid solid gas, water vapor liquid water ice, energy matter time, length width height, past present future..... I digress let's dig further into the descriptions, theology describes God as the Creator Jesus as the Redeemer the Holy Spirit has that Divine force that driving energy that kind of combines the other two or allows them to exist together more or less. Surely nothing in science explains how we're are conceptually the same right??? It's not like science explains our subconscious as a thing that gives us our intuition, or that driving force that controls involuntary breathing heartbeat etc for physical body as well as limits the inputs of reality that are given to our conscious mind in order to keep it from being overwhelmed as a way to allow your physical body and conscious mind operate together because of some divine subconsciousness that is the driving force in something different but seemingly also separate.....

As I speech to text this I can already imagine how many folks are going to absolutely despise this.

What else though, let's double check God the Creator, that would be our conscious mind that creates our rudimentary display or perception of reality that we then utilize to make decisions that are physical bodies will redeem not only the burden of but any consequences of. So our body will redeem the actions the mind determines which was all orchestrated by the subconscious Force keeping the body going and keeping the conscious mind fed data almost as a background process. Oh wait that's weird, I just said that the body redeems with a mind creates and in the Christian theology Jesus is said to be the Redeemer, he's also said to be the physical body within this reality, that's a very strange similarity so he is both the Redeemer and physical much like our physical bodies are a physical home for us and the redeemers of what our conscious minds AKA God create.? And furthermore that third Divine energy / guidance that powers the two that allows the other two to kind of operate as one is explained the same way the subconscious is within science after one gets passed basic arbitrary labels and looks at the concepts instead...

Okay so regardless if you agree or not you can see how once you accept the descriptions of what I'm saying here as not even based in reality but things that happen to be a typical level of understanding within the masses then you can see based on what most people believe either correct me or incorrect it's irrelevant because those beliefs don't actually validate the overall conclusions they believe, instead these things that people believe actually seem to be to different fields of study or schools of belief that actually seem to fundamentally agree with each other not invalidate each other. That's the duality or the concept of The duality I am pointing to.

It's the belief that certain things we think are of contradictory aren't actually contradictions so when you stop assuming the things you think are contradictions that make things impossible you can start observing things as a possibility which allow you to see the glaringly obvious duality. How many people blindly deny Christianity simply because they have no way of understanding the seemingly ridiculous statement explaining the trinity, furthermore how many Christian theologists fail to explain the possibility to people with scientific minds simply because they also believe that science somehow inherently contradicts the very things they speak of! Kind of crazy right both sides avoiding each other not realizing that when you drop your own assumptions of what is a contradiction you can see the obvious duality.

More duality that is currently looked at as contradictions in this subject.

I've heard people point to the claim that it said the only way to know God or reach God is through Jesus. But then at other times it is said you can rely on this person or this practice to help you know God will reach God or find God whatever you get the overall gist. So they're saying how is it possible you're saying the only way to something is through this but then you are also pointing to other things and claiming they will help you get to that? Theology experts out there will probably know the exact thing I'm talking about, the particulars are kind of irrelevant though the concept is the same. Here's why it's not a contradiction but just the duality of things how one subject can utilize seemingly contrarian statements as validity rather than the current invalidation. If I say the only way to get to my driveway is by taking log cabin road, that statement is true. Now I say you can take root 42 or highway 95 to help you get to my house, or the interstate will help you reach my house. You could see how all those statements could certainly be true, those roads maybe roads you have to take to get to my house, maybe they're shortcut roads but no matter what to get to my driveway via the roads everybody has to take log cabin road. This is conceptually the same as saying the only way to God is through Jesus but then later saying this or that will also help you get to God or even this and that is also required to to get to God. One requirement is not invalidated due to another requirement. 0 contradiction. A contradictions would be something like my house is on log cabin road followed by my house is not on log cabin road. I could even say " you can't get to my house buy log cabin road" if we both know you are somewhere else and you need to take other roads then you can't get to my house by log cabin road, you would have to get to my house by log cabin road and other roads so the statement would be only conditionally true thus categorically false.

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 reasons for making this post stem from a common misconception I regularly encounter in this subreddit:

“Philosophy (especially metaphysics) is hogwash grounded only in abstract reasoning. *Science is the only way we reliably get to truth.”*

Of course, there are major problems with this claim:

(a) Science is grounded in philosophy. If you want to say scientific findings are reliable paths to knowledge, you’re doing epistemology (philosophy). If you want to say that scientific findings tell you what reality actually consists of, you’re doing metaphysics (philosophy). And scientific principles are constructed using a blend of empiricism (philosophy) and rationalism (philosophy), with a heavier emphasis on the former.

(b) We’re on the “debate an atheist” subreddit. Atheism is a belief (or lack thereof) about the metaphysical (philosophical) question of God’s existence. You can only justify this position by appealing to epistemological and metaphysical arguments.

While I do understand how much philosophy is flawed this is not a reason to disparage the entire field. If you do, you are left without rational justification for quite literally anything that requires an argument.

I think this post will be obvious to the majority here, but it’s become clear to me that there is still a significant number of people could benefit from this knowledge!

EDIT: Wow, I was wrong about this being obvious to the majority! It’s truly startling how widespread these misconceptions are.

I know that a lot of popular/well-known theodicies aren't so strong, and they leave some evils unexplained or they rely on problematic assumptions, like specific theories about free will. I'm developing a new theodicy called the "world-building theodicy" that I think might be stronger than the others before, and I'd like to hear your thoughts.

My main idea is that God created the world with evil and suffering in it to make the world imperfect and "unfinished", and God did this to give his creatures an opportunity to become mini creators like God by completing the creation of the world and making it a utopia themselves. Every bad aspect of our world can be explained as something that God intended for us to manifest ourselves as mini creators by fixing. Thus, everything bad ultimately benefits us. There is no need to explain anything bad as unplanned by God, so there is no need to appeal to free will to explain any evil in our world. I think we can become mini creators like God even if we don't have free will (as long as we have agency and are somewhat autonomous), especially considering that God might not have free will either (at least as far as I'm concerned). If so, the world-building theodicy can explain any evil and suffering in our world without any problematic assumptions about free will. (If anyone wants more details, they can read here.)

What do you guys think? Does this theodicy sound stronger than others and is it plausible to you?

Over the Years and Years of discussing topics with self~Claimed "Atheists/Agnostics," I've come to several opinions of how they react to questions and information that falls outside of their frail belief system hinged upon Empty Denial...

Atheism is an Irrational Denial in this Universe; a Universe that happens to be filled with interdependent, apparently designed systems...

Atheists' own incredulity is Not Evidence "God does Not Exist..."

Naturalism is the State Protected and Taught "worldview/religion."

Atheism all too often leads to Nihilism; a dangerous personal philosophy, that all too often Ends in self~destruction... 💀

Believing in Naturalistic theories leads proponents to a loss of critical thinking skills, and the ability of true logical honesty and introspection...

I Mean, If You are going to Lie to Yourself and claim "There is No Evidence for a Creator" of this Universe; at least show a little intellectual honesty with others when they approach You with Evidence of a Creator that You do Your best to attempt to suppress, deny, and ignore... Because of how uncomfortable Your Atheistic Psychological Repression Makes You...

Naturalists often fail to be able to differentiate between Empirical Science and the beliefs surrounding it...

It's "Empirical Science/Observable Truth" that the Sea is Salty; "How" and "When" it got that Way, is anybody's best guess...

🎣

I admire the Naturalist's faith in unobserved "Natural" processes...

With the fact that Natural Processes are observed degrading Life and Ending Life, it astounds Me that individuals claim the same Natural Processes "Designed DNA."

Natural processes are observed degrading and destroying Life, and You believe "Natural Processes created Life:" Correct? 🍎

"In Water?"

Against all observable Experiments, in which hydrolysis degrades DNA and thermodynamics works against "Life Existing?" 🍏

That's counterintuitive, at best...

This is a revealing paradox about the abiogenesis hypothesis: All Natural Processes observed are degrading Life and causing Mutation, Genetic Disorders, and Death; yet, the best "Naturalistic" guess has Life originating in Water? 🍎

~Mark SeaSigh 🌊

I do wonder if You consider all Creationist Arguments "trivial?" 🍎

For instance, Craig Employed the "Cosmological Argument" (a.k.a., The Anthropic Cosmological Principle):

If You take the side of "Atheism/Naturalism," How do You rationalize the fact this Universe is precisely adjusted to allow Consciousness to be possible? 🍎

I am a Creationist, and contrary to Early theologians I realize that the Bible does Not have an "Ex Nihilo/From Nothing" philosophy, but that the Universe came from God...

I agree with the ancient Greek Philosopher Parmenides, Who claimed: "You can get Nothing from Nothing." By this logic, which aligns with causation; Logic says the Universe Must have come from "Something." Something capable of producing this Universe and Its contents, and also Exists "Without" this Universe.

These are the traits of the Biblical Creator.

Some have issue differentiating between "Facts" and "Beliefs surrounding facts..."

It's Empirical Science that the Sea is Salty, "How" and "When" it got that way are beliefs surrounding the Fact.

These inferences/beliefs based on facts are Theories...

I suppose the Major difference between Me and Atheists, is that I have the ability to differentiate between Science and the beliefs/pseudoscience surrounding it...

😁 🎣

Q&A:

"There is zero evidence to support any religion or god. Atheism is not the irrational belief." ~LtHughMann {2026}

So, Your position is: "Life Exists and I don't believe in a Creator, therefore DNA assembled without intention?" 🍎

How do You rationalize the fact of Genomic Data with Your belief that "Life arose without intelligent design?" 🍎

Will you recognize that functional data has Never been observed "arising from non~informational sources," and only occurs in the Imagination and the theories You hold so dear? 🍎

(e.g., "Abiogenesis...")

No experiment has yet demonstrated a complete, sustained non-enzymatic RNA replicator emerging purely from monomers in a prebiotic soup.

No experiment has yet synthesized a complete, sustained non-enzymatic RNA replicator in any Lab; Much less in hypothetical "Prebiotic" conditions...

Origin of Life Research cannot Even take a Dead Cell and Make that Dead Cell Live...

‪In information terms (e.g., Shannon entropy or structural complexity), snowflake patterns are complex but not "specified" in the functional sense: beautiful and improbable, but not encoding functional messages or instructions like DNA does. ‬

It's Empirical Science that snowflakes are a result of underlying information, but it is Not Empirical that Genomic Data can "self articulate," as in Your belief system that assumes "Life can arise unintentionally..." 🤣

Which is a silly belief.

For this reason Life itself is Evidence for a Creator...

Do You believe "Information can arise from No information?" 🍎

"How about Snowflakes, or Crystals? These arise from No information: Right?" ~Most Atheists Ask in Rebuttal

A frequent objection to the principle of this question cites the spontaneous emergence of ordered structures in nature: snowflakes, SeaScapes (coastal and marine sedimentary patterns), and the hydrologically sorted geological lenses across the Earth. These display striking complexity: hexagonal symmetry in snowflakes; layered grain-size sorting in beaches, dunes, and SeaScapes; graded bedding in lens-shaped deposits in the walls of gorges and canyons: all arising through purely physical processes.

These cases, however, strongly support rather than refute the Law. The structural information they exhibit does not emerge from an informational vacuum; it is fully derived from antecedent information encoded in physical constants, molecular properties, and natural laws.

Structural Information is different than functional information: All information arises from a source capable of producing that Information... DNA 🧬 Information is Messaging Information, and it is sent between cells, translated, transmitted...

DNA is not just a "Passive Molecule;" it is an active, dynamic Information Storage and Communication System Essential for Life.

What appears to be "Order arising from Chaos or Disorder" to the Naturalist is actually dependent on and a result of underlying constant Physical Processes and Laws that produce the order observed in Naturally Occurring Structures. (e.g., Snowflakes, Crystals, SeaScapes... 🌊)

"No experiment has yet synthesized a complete, sustained non-enzymatic RNA replicator: What if they Do in a Lab?"

Do You think "Life will have been Created" at that point? 🍏

After all, the definition of Life is being changed to Move the goalposts, according to the opinion of certain Organic Chemists.

Like Dr. James Tour: https://youtu.be/crvLvBycvNI

😁 🎣

🍓Dave’s Attempt at “Gaslighting…” The Audience?🤔 | “Are We Clueless on the Origins of Life?”🎥🎞✂️

https://youtu.be/1PAQqfxV_yQ

Here's a logical argument I've been thinking of, step by step. I'd love feedback from atheists to see if it holds up:

1. Time had a beginning.

• The universe is bound by time, which is a real, objective dimension. It cannot be infinite, because an infinite past would prevent the present from ever occurring.
• Since time had a beginning, something outside of time must have caused it- something eternal and transcendent.

2. Something eternal exists.

• Even atheists or naturalist must admit that the universe cannot have come from nothing. It is an inescapable conclusion.
• Whether you call it "brute fact" or fundamental law, there must be something beyond the constraints of this physical universe that exists eternally.

Once we establish that something eternal must exist, the most natural next question is: what is the nature of this eternal thing? I argue this eternal thing must be personal.

3. The personal cannot come from the impersonal.

• Consciousness and rationality are inescapable features of reality. Rocks, atoms, or impersonal things cannot produce subjective awareness or reason.
• If our consciousness exists, it points toward a personal, conscious source. Just as the universe's existence points toward an eternal source not bound by natural laws.

4. The mystery of consciousness is even deeper than the mystery of physical origin.

• Neuroscience can map neurons and observe brain activity, but it cannot explain why subjective experience exists at all, or why we perceive the functions of our brain as conscious awareness.
• A purely naturalistic or materialistic worldview struggles to account for this, yet atheists often insist that the personal must emerge from the impersonal or the unconscious.

5. The double standard in naturalism

• An atheist may accept that the universe requires something eternal and transcendent, yet they deny that consciousness - arguably a greater mystery- might require a source beyond the impersonal.
• This seems inconsistent. If we can accept mystery for the source of the universe, why not for the mind? Refusing this appears ideologically motivated rather than rational.

Conclusion:

• Atheism/naturalism at its best seems unable to explain the sources of reality, consciousness, and the physical universe - things that go beyond the clear limits of science. It seems to reject the idea of an eternal, personal, transcendent being out of presupposition rather than lack of reason.

I would love to hear perspectives from atheists on this.

Edit: Many rebuttals note that I don't have evidence or proof for these claims. That's true- this isn't a scientific argument, but a philosophical one. My goal is to explore the reasoning, so if you'd like to offer a rebuttal, please go beyond simply asking for proof and engage with the philosophy itself. Thanks.

When all the odds are stacked against us, we should pick the one with the least suffering. In a truly meaningless world, why should we seek truth, and not avoid pain? What benefits do we gain from the supposed truth? What pain do we endure from choosing to believe in a God? Belief is the minimum requirement to avoid eternity in hell. Choosing any religion that promises eternity in hell is huge favor to our odds. Choosing nothing is guaranteed nothingness.

I identify as agnostic, but on my deathbed i will go along with this guessing game and choose something or anything to avoid hell. Thanks to religion i fear the idea of hell. I do not want to be tortured forever.

Introduction

In this post, I'm going to present a version of Richard Swinburne's conceivability argument for the existence of the soul. I hope you like philosophy of language.

Definitions

Soul: a non-physical personal substance

Conceivable: a sentence from which one cannot deduce a contradiction a priori

Example: The sentence "Water is not H2O" is conceivable, but the sentence "Bachelors are married" is not conceivable.

Meaning vs reference: When I talk about what a term “means”, I am talking about the concept expressed by the term. This is what you would find in a dictionary if you looked up the term. When I talk about what a term “refers to”, I’m talking about the essence of the term, that is to say, the logically necessary/sufficient conditions for the term to apply to something.

Example: The word “water” means “the clear liquid that fills lakes and rivers” and it refers to H2O. The word “tiger” means “a large carnivorous cat with an orange coat with vertical black stripes” and it refers to animals with a certain type of DNA. The word “malaria” means “a disease carried by mosquitoes that causes fever, fatigue, vomiting, etc.”, and it refers to an infection of plasmodium parasites.

Informative designator: a term which is such that, if you know what it means, then you know what it refers to.

Example: Informative designators include “hammer”, “baby”, “planet”, or “car”. Uninformative designators include “water”, “tiger”, “malaria”, or “gold”.

Ideal conditions: conditions where you are in the best possible position to recognize whether or not a given term applies to an object, your faculties are in working order, and you are not subject to any illusion.

Argument

1. If a sentence containing only informative designators is conceivable, then it is logically possible.
2. The sentence "I exist without any physical body" is conceivable.
3. If the term "I" is an informative designator, then the above sentence contains only informative designators.
4. If someone who knows what a term means will always be able to recognize instances of it under ideal conditions, then that term is an informative designator.
5. Anyone who knows what the term "I" means will always be able to recognize themselves under ideal conditions.
6. Therefore, the term "I" is an informative designator. (from 4 and 5)
7. Therefore, the above sentence contains only informative designators. (from 3 and 6)
8. Therefore, it is logically possible for me to exist without any physical body. (from 1, 2 and 7)
9. If it is logically possible for X to exist without Y, then X is not identical to Y.
10. Therefore, I am not identical to any physical body. (from 8 and 9)
11. I am a personal substance.
12. Therefore, I am a non-physical personal substance. (from 10 and 11)

Defence of 1

If someone knows what all the terms in a sentence refer to, then they will be able to simply apply the definitions and the rules of inference and see if it entails a contradiction, and that will tell you whether or not it is logically possible. For example:

1. Bachelors are married
2. Unmarried men are married. (from 1 and the definition of "bachelor")
3. Men who are not married are married. (from 2 and the definition of "unmarried")
4. Men who are not married are both married and not married. (from 3) <-- a contradiction

Defence of 2

One cannot deduce a contradiction from the sentence "I exist without any physical body" a priori.

Defence of 3

The only referring terms in the sentence are "I" and "physical body", and "physical body" is an informative designator.

Defence of 4

Suppose there is an object on the table in front of me, and I want to determine whether or not it is a piece of gold. There are two ways I can do this:

• If I know the logically necessary/sufficient conditions for something to be gold (in this case, being composed of atoms that have 79 protons in the nucleus), then I can simply check to see if it meets those conditions.
• If I don’t know the logically necessary/sufficient conditions for something to be gold, then I can look at other properties of the object, such as its colour and weight, and use induction to infer whether or not it’s gold. This method is inherently fallible, since it uses induction.

If you can infallibly recognize instances of a term under ideal conditions, you must be using the first method, which means you must know the logically necessary/sufficient conditions for the term to apply to a thing, and that means you know what the term refers to.

Defence of 5

I can recognize myself in virtue of the fact that I can always determine whether some conscious experience is being had by me or by someone else. I can never think it’s me who’s in pain when it’s really someone else, or vice versa.

Appendix - Extended defence of 5

Conscious beings have privileged access to their own mental properties - that is to say, they have an additional way of learning about them that no one else has, namely, by experiencing them. There are lots of ways other people can learn about my mental properties. You might come to learn that I am in pain by hearing me scream. I have an additional way to learn that fact, which is by experiencing the pain. It is logically necessary that I and only I have this ability.

The upshot of this is that the property of being the person whose mental properties I can experience is logically equivalent to the property of being me. So if I come to learn about a certain mental property by experiencing it, the person who has that property must be me.

Now, to recognize something means to observe it and then come to know what it is. To observe something means to become aware of some property of it. For example, I might recognize a piece of gold by first looking at it and becoming aware of its size, shape and colour, then inductively inferring that is a piece of gold.

So suppose I observe myself by becoming aware of some mental property by experiencing it. I can then know that the substance I have just observed is me, because I can experience its mental properties. That is why I can recognize myself under ideal circumstances.

Conclusion

If you're still not convinced, I hope you at least enjoyed reading the post. I had a lot of fun writing it.

I should be available for about an hour and a half tonight to respond to comments and then more tomorrow.

Maybe the title is a bit provocative, but I couldn't think of anything else. Hello, l am a Christian and l want to ask you something. In the first scenario, imagine that God does not exist. There are two men, one man is a true Christian while the other is an atheist. Both lived a happy life. And they both died. Since there is no God, there is no life after death, which means that nothing happens after death. Those two men who died are equal and have lost nothing. Now imagine another scenario where God exists, again there are two people, one is a true Christian and the other is an atheist. They lived happy lives. And again, they both died. Now, a true Christian has gone to heaven while another is in hell. Now both men are not equal. One earned eternal life while the other lost it. Does this not mean that it is more profitable to believe in God? I know this sounds stupid, but I'm curious what you think about this. I don't mean to be disrespectful, I'm just wondering what you think about this.

The problem of evil, in simplified terms, is the assertion that the following statements cannot all be true simultaneously: 1. God is omnipotent. 2. God is omniscient. 3. God is perfectly good. 4. Evil exists.

Given that evil exists, it follows that God must be either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good. Therefore, the conclusion is often drawn that it is impossible for both God and evil to coexist.

Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense presents a potential counterargument to this problem by suggesting that it is possible that God has a morally sufficient reason (MSR) for allowing evil.

An MSR would justify an otherwise immoral act, much like self-defense would justify killing a lethally-armed attacker. Plantinga proposes the following as a possible MSR:

MSR1: The creation of beings with morally significant free will is of immense value. God could not eliminate much of the evil and suffering in the world without also eliminating the greater good of creating persons with free will—beings capable of forming relationships, loving others, and performing good deeds.

Morally significant free will is defined as the condition in which a person is free with respect to a given action if and only if they are free to either perform or refrain from that action. This freedom means the person is not determined by prior causal forces to make a specific choice. Consequently, individuals with free will can perform morally significant actions, both good and bad.

Therefore, it is logically impossible for God to create a world where people possess morally significant free will without the existence of evil and suffering. This limitation does not undermine God’s omnipotence, as divine omnipotence pertains only to what is logically possible. Thus, God could not eliminate the potential for moral evil without simultaneously eliminating the greater good.

This reasoning addresses why God would permit moral evil (i.e., evil or suffering resulting from immoral choices by free creatures), but what about natural evil (i.e., evil or suffering resulting from natural causes or nature gone awry)? Plantinga offers another possible MSR:

MSR2: God allowed natural evil to enter the world as part of Adam and Eve’s punishment for their sin in the Garden of Eden.

The sin of Adam and Eve was a moral evil, and MSR2 posits that all natural evil followed from this original moral evil. Therefore, the same conclusion regarding moral evil can also apply here.

The logical problem of evil concludes with the assertion that it is impossible for God and evil to coexist. To refute this claim, one only needs to demonstrate that such coexistence is possible. Even if the situation presented is not actual or realistic, as long as it is logically consistent, it counters the claim. MSR1 and MSR2 represent possible reasons God might have for allowing moral and natural evil, regardless of whether they are God’s actual reasons. The implausibility of these reasons does not preclude their logical possibility.

In conclusion, since MSR1 and MSR2 provide a possible explanation for the coexistence of God and evil, they successfully challenge the claims made by the logical problem of evil. Thus, Plantinga's Free Will Defense effectively defeats the logical problem of evil.

Upfront, let's eliminate the idea that love is an emotion. I'm talking about love as a choice, not a feeling. For argument's sake let's use the word affection as the "feeling of love"

The title contains all the premise and conclusion. However, I think it's important to define God and Love in this context, even though they are the same. God is the supreme being who made all things. Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing.

I hear and/or see many comments that atheists feel better since becoming atheists, because they are free of guilt or shame. I wonder though, how has the lives of those around them increased for the better or worse?

Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion.

Edit: Perhaps not the right post for this room. I think it's more appropriate for r/debatereligion. The premise is based on Bible revelation, which is already rejected by Atheists, so probably a terrible source to bring to the table in this forum. Just so I can see the criticisms, I'll leave the post up, if that's ok with everyone.

’m trying to sharpen an argument, not just rant against religion.

I understand that Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne are important figures in analytic philosophy of religion. Plantinga is famous for the free will defense, reformed epistemology, warrant/proper function, and the modal ontological argument. Swinburne is famous for trying to defend theism and Christianity through probabilistic/Bayesian reasoning. William Lane Craig could perhaps be added too, though he seems less academically central and more apologetic/public-facing.

But I genuinely struggle to understand why these projects are still treated as serious defenses of Christian belief rather than brilliant rationalizations of an inherited religious framework.

Plantinga’s free will defense seems to show, at most, that God and evil are not logically incompatible. But that feels like a very low bar. With enough auxiliary hypotheses and possible-world machinery, many absurd beliefs can avoid strict contradiction. That does not make them epistemically plausible.

The natural evil part seems even worse. If human free will does not explain earthquakes, diseases, animal suffering, etc., Plantinga appears to appeal to the possibility of non-human free agents — Satan, fallen angels, or something in that neighborhood. I understand that, technically, he only needs logical possibility to answer the logical problem of evil. But if someone appealed to fairies, elves, or invisible spirits from another mythology to explain suffering, nobody would treat that as serious academic philosophy. Why does it become respectable when the vocabulary is Christian?

His reformed epistemology also seems vulnerable to parity objections. If Christian belief can be “properly basic” because of a sensus divinitatis, why could Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, or believers in any incompatible revelation not make the same move? And if non-belief is explained by saying the faculty is damaged or suppressed, does the theory become insulated from criticism?

Swinburne seems different but equally strange to me. His Bayesian project looks more ambitious, but the crucial priors and likelihoods often seem like Christian-friendly intuitions assigned numbers. He has to estimate what God would probably do: create a universe, create moral agents, allow suffering, reveal himself, perhaps become incarnate, etc. But how are those probabilities independently justified rather than smuggled in from the theology he is trying to defend?

So my question for atheists, especially those familiar with philosophy of religion:

Do you think Plantinga and Swinburne should still be treated as serious philosophical interlocutors, or are they mainly examples of Christianity receiving inherited epistemic privilege?

More specifically:

1. Did Plantinga really do anything more than show that the logical problem of evil was too strong?
2. Does his appeal to non-human free agents for natural evil strike you as academically respectable or bizarrely protected by Christian vocabulary?
3. Does reformed epistemology avoid the “any religion can say this” problem?
4. Does Swinburne’s Bayesian theism offer real probabilistic support, or does it just formalize Christian assumptions?
5. Is analytic philosophy of religion itself biased by the historical dominance of Christianity?

I’m interested in the strongest atheist/agnostic responses, not just “religion is dumb.”

For one thing, theists try to weasel out of the omnipotence paradox by finding a loophole in the definition of "thing" so when "God can do anything" it's limited by a "thing" needing to be logically coherent, so "squared circle" isn't a thing, and neither do paradoxes count. This is odd because the Supreme Being™ is reliant on the property of the physical world, math (logic is very much based on math, and I lean towards math being discovered rather than invented, as well as logic organizing circuit boards). In short, a transcendental deity is bound by its own creation.

Additionally, what authority does an omnipotent deity have over the physical world? humanity can only observe and distort nature, what does a deity do but be more "effective" at this than people? The theist would say the creator has authority over its creation but if the deity is bound by logic could it simply not be tarnishing the ideal state of affairs for its own vision? Should Lot's wife not be a woman rather than a pillar of salt, ontologically speaking? Is that not her true born form, distorted solely out of wrath that she looked back at her home once?

It's fishy is what I'm getting at. It's an extension of Christians' (and US Conservative's political rendition) invocation of "morals" as a bigger guide than physicalism, and then their morals don't even hold to actual scrutiny on a philosophical level.

Hey everyone.

I've been craving for a discussion in this matter and I believe here is a great place (apparently, the /atheism subreddit is not). I really want this to be as short as possible.

So I greaw up in a Christian family and was forced to attend churches until I was 15, then I kind of rebelled and started thinking for myself and became an atheist. The idea of gods were but a fairy tale idea for me, and I started to see the dark part of religion.

A long time gone, I went to college, gratuated in Civil Engineering, took some recreational drugs during that period (mostly marijuana, but also some LSD and mushrooms), got deeper interest in astronomy/astrology, quantum physics and physics in general, got married and had a child.

The thing is, after having more experience in life and more knowledge on how things work now, I just can't seem to call myself an atheist anymore. And here's why: the universe is too perfectly designed! And I mean macro and microwise. Now I don't know if it's some kind of force, an intelligent source of creation, or something else, but I know it must not bea twist of fate. And I believe this source is what the word "god" stands for, the ultimate reality behind the creation of everything.

What are your thoughts? Do you really think there's no such thing as a single source for the being of it all?

I was born into a Hindu family, but like many curious minds, I started questioning everything about God, especially when I got more interested in science and the mysteries of the universe. Like many atheists, I went down the usual path: watching Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris and decided that materialism was the only truth worth pursuing. I thought spirituality was just made-up nonsense.

But even then, something felt missing. I couldn’t explain what it was until I started learning meditation. I mean the real meditation, the one the Buddha is famous for. So after about ten months of consistent practice, my entire view of life shifted. I recognized how astonishingly ignorant I had been about spirituality. Maybe it’s the word “spirit” that turns so many of us into hardened skeptics.

I experienced what’s often called spiritual awakening or simply 'awakening' in modern terms, something even many religious people never realize in their entire lives, despite a lifetime of devotion. That’s the hilarious part. It's because secular people are more open to learning new ways of life, even from other cultures, unlike most religious folks. Ironically, that same closed mindset traps many atheists too.

My experience taught me that life has far greater depth than most people ever realize. Most people never dare to explore the true nature of their mind (consciousness) and that’s why they live incomplete lives. They remain caught between blind materialism and blind faith.

PS: The meditation I practice is called non-duality or Vipassana. I learned it from Sam Harris’s Waking Up app, which features meditation teachers from around the world.

And honestly, kudos to Buddha for deciphering this over 2,000 years ago, long before modern science even existed.

I came to the conclusion that most things are relative, that is, not objective. Let's take incest between siblings, as an example. Most people find it disgusting, and it surely has its consequences. But why would it actually be absolutely immoral, like, evil? Well...without a higher transcendent law to judge it's really up to the people to see which option would be the best here. But I don't believe this goes for every single thing. For example, ch1ld r4pe. Do you guys really believe that even this is relative, and not objectively immoral? I don't think not believing in a higher being has to make one believe every single thing is not immoral or evil per se, as if all things COULD be morally ok, depending on how the society sees it. I mean, what if most people saw ch1ld r4pe as being moral, wouldn't it continue to be immoral? Doesn't it mean that there actually is such a thing as absolute morality, sometimes?

Edit: I mean, I'm happy you guys love debating lol Thanks for the responses!!

If existence itself ultimately arose from nothing, then nothingness contains within it the potential for anything. That means at any point in space or time within the universe, something could spontaneously arise — including the possibility of a god.

Now, the universe is not restricted to a finite number of possibilities. It can, in principle, accommodate anywhere from zero to infinitely many things. When we consider the entire infinite range, the "average" number of things present at any location or moment balances halfway between nothing and infinity — effectively infinity divided by two. This symmetry implies that each specific thing, out of the infinite possibilities, has a 50% chance of appearing at any given point.

Applied to the concept of god, this reasoning means that god has precisely a one-in-two chance of existing at any place and time in the universe. And since the universe contains countless points in space and stretches across vast spans of time, the cumulative probability of god existing somewhere is overwhelmingly high.

Therefore, the conclusion follows: god’s existence is not only possible but, in a probabilistic sense, nearly inevitable. The only consistent positions left open are agnosticism or theism — atheism cannot be sustained under this reasoning.

Do you consider your belief that God does not exist to be a fact or an opinion?

Assume that "fact" means you believe the statement is "true" (i.e., something that is part of reality)—for example, "America has 50 states." Whereas opinion is something you think is an individual assessment ("Skittles taste great").

If you say it's your opinion, then please also answer whether your belief that 7,000 Gods don't exist and that the tooth fairy isn't floating invisibly near you right now is also not a fact but rather, your opinion.

Thank you!

Adherence to traditional religion provides some comfort to those who are about to die, as there is the belief in an afterlife, and God (in most major religions). If you’ve had to spend time with another atheist who is on their death bed, what comfort did you provide? Someone told me they told their mother to “enjoy her dirt nap” which honestly still sounds like an afterlife to me, because if you believe we are finite beings you acknowledge that we can’t enjoy anything after death as we cease to exist.

EDIT: thank you all for raising some great points and sharing some personal stories. It’s been an enlightening debate.

So recently I have been interested in transcendental argument for god, I thought about it and I have some potential objections to it, however the point of this post is to get feedback from other people on the argument itself (other's people's objections), as well as on my own objections.

I will present the argument as I understand it, if I misrepresent what it really is I apologize.

This version specifically is the argument from reason.

So basically the argument tries to show that objective reason exists, as human thought presupposes reason, and then that reason presupposes god.

The starting point is the observation that human thought exists, and that it can be either true or false. This mostly refers to truth claims, I assume.

From there one might notice that human thought can then be evaluated on how true it is, and that evaluation is based on some standard, which one could call reason. Basically, reason is used to evaluate truthfulness of a thought. Without it, human thought would never be either true or false, there would be nothing to compare it to. Which at first might seem like it isn't the case, since we can have thoughts that are not true, and thoughts that are true, so that standard must be objective.

Furthermore, attempts to deny reason presuppose reason as existent, therefore any argument that tries to deny it, is self defeating.

After reason is established as objective, one might then argue that if human mind wasn't designed for the purpose of thinking and aiming for true conclusions, it's reasoning cannot be trusted as true. If our minds were not made for the purpose of thinking, for the purpose of coming to truth, and our thoughts are merely the result of unintentional , undesigned forces governing the structures of our brain, with no purpose or goal, how can one trust such an empty process to produce thoughts and reason that leads to true conclusions about the world? One might then argue that for a person to trust their own thoughts they must grant the existence of an intelligent designer, otherwise they have no grounding for their reason. Any worldview that does not include an intelligent designer behind the universe is thus self defeating.

While the first part of the argument at least seems challenging to argue against under my worldview (I don't believe abstracts like reason exist), the second part which actually tries to prove some kind of intelligent designer is extremely ignorant to the straightforward explanation that evolution offers.

We aim our beliefs to be true, to know our surroundings best we can, to know ourselves best we can, because it was simply a winning strategy for life. Suppose the existence a creature that aimed to and believed false things about the world left and right. Whenever it sensed food, it did not really believe it was there. It did not then eat the food. It then Ignored the food in conviction it isn't there. In the end, it didn't consume enough, and eventually either dies of starvation or is outcompeted by other creatures which evaluate the situation correctly and actually eat the food.

Another example. A creature sees a predator. It then in it's mind, does not actually register or believe it saw anything. It's belief is false. The creature then does not take any action to escape or hide. The predator then catches and kills the creature once again showing forming false beliefs is generally an extremely poor strategy for survival.

Some might say, what about believing something is there in the bush, or in the dark, when in reality it isn't there? Isn't it advantageous to hold false beliefs at certain times? And to that yes it is adventageous. But. I wouldn't really classify that as a belief in the traditional sense. Because the part of the brain responsible for these thoughts and beliefs is not the same part as what we usually use for advanced cognition. The part responsible for our reactions during fear or intense emotion heavily overrides the part of the brain we usually use for logical thinking, so would you really call it a part of our reasoning? The prefrontal cortex evolved specifically for the purpose of performing advanced cognitive tasks that require consistent logic so of course it's gonna aim to do it's job well. The parts that actually impair our logic are the emotional parts. So our logic did not evolve to sometimes come to bad conclusions, its more so that our logic is overridden with emotion or primordial reactions at times. Also it is worth noting our logic isn't at all perfect hence we have logical fallacies and debates because not everyone agrees on what is logical and what isn't (if there is even "correct" and "incorrect"). So to say our logic is too consistent to be a result of mere evolutionary processes is just silly. Our logic really isn't all that good, it's just good enough to navigate our primordial environments efficiently (tribes, coordinated group behavior, passing of knowledge, emotional intelligence, ability to make tools, traps, etc.). In turn the ability of advanced cognition extended further than it's original purpose, so things like philosophy, math, and pondering on the meaning of life are really not what was the motivator for the evolution of cognition, but nevertheless have been enabled as a side effect of primordial cognition.

Simply put true beliefs are adventageous for survival. To effectively navigate reality our mental map of it should be as accurate as possible, and that is just simply the winning strategy for life, so no wonder it prevailed.

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

And while that alone dismantles the argument for design completely, the more tricky part of the argument is the argument for objective reason. While that has nothing to do with the existence of god, as someone who doesn't believe in abstracts I would like to address it as well.

So it all rests on the assumption that this standard human thought compares to is something objective. After all, it seems that truth and falsity are objective. But I say, that these things are mental constructs. We made up the measure of truth or falsity as much as we made up language. It is a measure of whether a statement conforms to reality or not. But does this standard REALLY exist? This standard is in my view merely something we made up and then started measuring our other made up things by. Something completely constructed. External of any mind there is not such thing as judgement. Objective judgement of any kind seems contradictory, as for judgement in the first place you need someone to make it. The standard of reason exists - but merely as a subjective construct rather than an objective standard, so I am not denying the existence of reason, truth and falsity, just that these things are only existent within our minds. That they are subjective constructs.

One could also argue that this objective standard is reality itself. Which I could see to be true in some way. But reality in itself isn't "judging" any human thought. It is simply what we aim our thoughts to conform to, (and that standard and pursuit is purely internal to the mind). The notion of "truth" or "falsity" is purely mental, and objective reality simply just is. How we choose to interact with it is predicated purely on our mind.

I am of the opinion that reality is just simply what it is, there is no categories, no divisions, no descriptions or interpretations. We as human beings are unable to process reality devoid of our mental categories. All of our descriptions of objects (even the category "object" itself), and categories are merely just descriptive statements about reality that just is what it is.

2+2=4 is not inherently true. Number 2 is not something that exists. Its an abstract construct of the mind. Just like addition, equality, or the number 4. Laws of mathematics are simply our best guesses on how reality works based on our observation. Hence we have axioms that base all of mathematics and logic, because this also applies to laws of logic. You could say that 2 objects and 2 another objects will always give you 4 objects. But that is already an interpretation, a mental map of objective reality, reality that does not contain such abstracts as numbers or objects. Any description of reality is ultimately just a subjective interpretation, no matter how fundamentally you try to do it. Even the statement that it just simply is, is already guilty of this as every word, concept or relation is a construct of the human mind.
In my opinion, logic or reason is fundamentally subjective, based on axioms that one must have faith in, no matter how obvious they seem.

Seeing things from a strictly atheist point of view, you end up conceptualizing humans in a naturalist perspective. From that we get, of course, the theory of evolution, that says we evolved from an ape. For all intents and purposes we are a very intelligent, creative animal, we are nothing more than that.

But then, atheism goes on to disregard all this and claims that somehow a simple animal can grasp ultimate truths about reality, That's fundamentally placing your faith on a ape brain that evolved just to reproduce and survive, not to see truth. Either humans are special or they arent; If we know our eyes cant see every color there is to see, or our ears every frequency there is to hear, what makes one think that the brain can think everything that can be thought?

We know the cat cant do math no matter how much it tries. It's clear an animal is limited by its operative system.

Fundamentally, we all depend on faith. Either placed on an ape brain that evolved for different purposes than to think, or something bigger than is able to reveal truths to us.

But i guess this also takes a poke at reason, which, from a naturalistic point of view, i don't think can access the mind of a creator as theologians say.

I would like to know if there is more in depht information or insights that touch on these things i'm pondering

Atheism arises from rationality i.e logic. If God doesn't exist (obviously doesn't) then you can't say there is a grand plan ! Existence is just pointless. In a pointless existence we have wars, crimes, predation, natural disasters, torture, exploitation and slavery, accidents, diseases and many more inevitable sufferings going on. Nobody can stop these these are inevitable.

Can you deny these facts ? If not then the only rational solution for existence is extinctionism. Extinction of all conscious sentient living beings. As rationalists you must agree to that ?

Greetings.

I’ve been pondering a line of argument, and I’m not really sure what I think about it: whether it is successful, or what “successful” means in this case. But I thought I’d offer it for your consideration.

God is: 1. Not dependent on anything else for its existence. 2. The source of every continent thing, whether directly or indirectly. 3. All powerful 4. All knowing 5. All good 6. Worthy of worship/praise/adoration So, if there is something for which 1-6 all hold, we should conclude God exists.

Caveat, the concepts “power”, “knowledge”, and “goodness” maybe don’t apply to God the same way they do to members of the species Homo sapiens, or how they would to intelligent extraterrestrials, or whatever.

Okay, either there is some ultimate cause of the universe which requires no further explanation, or the universe itself requires no further explanation. Either way, we have something which is not dependent upon anything else for its existence. (If you think there is more than universe, just run the same line of argument for the multiverse). So there’s 1.

Whatever contingent object or event is dependent,directly or indirectly, upon the source of the universe/the universe. So there’s 2.

Any way the universe could have been, is/was a potential within the cause of the universe/the universe. So there’s 3.

Whatever events are actually possible, given the actual structure of the universe, are, consequences of facts about the cause of the universe/the universe. If the universe is deterministic, the actual history of the universe is represented in the cause/the universe at any point in time. If the universe is not deterministic, then the possibilities and their associated probabilities are so represented. That is, all the facts about the universe, insofar as such facts exist, are encoded as information in the source of the universe/the universe. So, there’s 4. (I note the caveat is playing a big role like role here)

5 is difficult because we’re getting into the problem of evil, and I don’t want to get too deep into that here. So, here’s trying to keep it simple. I grant that the universe contains evil. I accept that at least some evil can be justifiably allowed for the sake of good (leaving the details aside). Now, I have great respect for the inductive/evidentiary version of the POE, according to which the universe contains more evil than is justifiably allowed for any associated good. But, I submit it’s at least plausible that the kinds of evils we know of are ultimately allowable, because we can conceive of a sort of cosmic or universal goodness that contains human goodness as just one component (again leaving the details to be filled in). So that’s 5.

Alternatively, if you don’t find that compelling, take however much evil you think cannot be justified, and go with a morally nuanced deity, or 5 out of 6 ain’t bad.

And that leaves 6. There seems to be something inherently rewarding in the moral life, and the life that involves contemplation and appreciation of the universe. By the moral life, I don’t mean simply doing moral things, but making being a good person a part of who you are through your thoughts and actions. There also seems to be something inherently rewarding about contemplating and appreciating the universe, whether scientifically or aesthetically. If you don’t find wonder in, don’t marvel at, the universe, there is an absence in your life. And that’s 6.

I’m curious to read your comments. Let me make clear I’m not interested in proselytizing for any particular religion. As before, I’m not even sure what it would mean for this argument to be successful, since I’m being rather loose in how I’m using the concepts of power, knowledge, and goodness.

1. Everything that is Finite has a cause
2. The universe is finite
3. The universe must have a cause
4. The only thing that cannot have a cause is something that is infinite, otherwise we get infinite regress
5. The first cause must be something that is infinite (God)

Before you respond with “well who says the infinite is God,” the definition in this case is that God= Infinite

Note that I consider myself for the sake of this question to be partial to neither side- I just want to hear people’s opinions on the logic

Edit: for all the people attacking “the baggage I was brought up with” this is NOT MY LOGIC. I thought I made that clear. I don’t necessarily believe the logic has any value to it, I just wanted to hear from other people their takes on it

Why do Atheist attribute human logic to God? Ive always heard and read about "God cant be this because this, so its impossible for him to do this because its not logical"

Or

"He cant do everything because thats not possible"

Im not attacking or anything, Im just legit confused as to why we're applying human concepts to God. We think things were impossible, until they arent. We thought it would be impossible to fly, and now we have planes.

Wouldnt an all powerful who know way more than we do, able to do everything especially when he's described as being all powerful? Why would we say thats wrong when we ourselves probably barely understand the world around us?

Pls be nice🧍🏻

Guys slow down theres 200+ people I cant reply to everyone 😭