u/Traditional-Wing-796

One of the, or I should say, the leading factor why children grew up "religious" is because of their parent's religion.

There is a massive credibility enhancing display in a child's surrounding while growing in a religious environment.

Social context influences our worldview and thinking to a large extent.

Studies suggest that many of the children who grow up to be "religious" is not through reasoning or rationale but through societal constraints, conditioning and emotional factors.

Conformity and prestigious bias also largely shape the worldviews of the child because there is a natural inclination towards believing what majority of the people believe and to consider believes of "prestigious figures" as absolute truth.

The "practice what you preach" attitude further strengthens the view because we, as humans, have a natural bias leaning towards thinking what other people believe and practice as being true.

To a large extent we are products of our cultural learning and environments.

What I desire is that religions should be held under scrutiny, be questioned, put under investigation, thought about rationally rather being thought as a geographic, social or cultural "accident".

One of the, or I should say, the leading factor why children grew up "religious" is because of their parent's religion.

There is a massive credibility enhancing display in a child's surrounding while growing in a religious environment.

Social context influences our worldview and thinking to a large extent.

Studies suggest that many of the children who grow up to be "religious" is not through reasoning or rationale but through societal constraints, conditioning and emotional factors.

Conformity and prestigious bias also largely shape the worldviews of the child because there is a natural inclination towards believing what majority of the people believe and to consider believes of "prestigious figures" as absolute truth.

The "practice what you preach" attitude further strengthens the view because we, as humans, have a natural bias leaning towards thinking what other people believe and practice as being true.

To a large extent we are products of our cultural learning and environments.

What I desire is that religions should be held under scrutiny, be questioned, put under investigation, thought about rationally rather being thought as a geographic, social or cultural "accident".

One of the, or I should say, the leading factor why children grew up "religious" is because of their parent's religion.

There is a massive credibility enhancing display in a child's surrounding while growing in a religious environment.

Social context influences our worldview and thinking to a large extent.

Studies suggest that many of the children who grow up to be "religious" is not through reasoning or rationale but through societal constraints, conditioning and emotional factors.

Conformity and prestigious bias also largely shape the worldviews of the child because there is a natural inclination towards believing what majority of the people believe and to consider believes of "prestigious figures" as absolute truth.

The "practice what you preach" attitude further strengthens the view because we, as humans, have a natural bias leaning towards thinking what other people believe and practice as being true.

To a large extent we are products of our cultural learning and environments.

What I desire is that religions should be held under scrutiny, be questioned, put under investigation, thought about rationally rather being thought as a geographic, social or cultural "accident".

One of the, or I should say, the leading factor why children grew up "religious" is because of their parent's religion.

There is a massive credibility enhancing display in a child's surrounding while growing in a religious environment.

Social context influences our worldview and thinking to a large extent.

Studies suggest that many of the children who grow up to be "religious" is not through reasoning or rationale but through societal constraints, conditioning and emotional factors.

Conformity and prestigious bias also largely shape the worldviews of the child because there is a natural inclination towards believing what majority of the people believe and to consider believes of "prestigious figures" as absolute truth.

The "practice what you preach" attitude further strengthens the view because we, as humans, have a natural bias leaning towards thinking what other people believe and practice as being true.

To a large extent we are products of our cultural learning and environments.

What I desire is that religions should be held under scrutiny, be questioned, put under investigation, thought about rationally rather being thought as a geographic, social or cultural "accident".

One of the, or I should say, the leading factor why children grew up "religious" is because of their parent's religion.

There is a massive credibility enhancing display in a child's surrounding while growing in a religious environment.

Social context influences our worldview and thinking to a large extent.

Studies suggest that many of the children who grow up to be "religious" is not through reasoning or rationale but through societal constraints, conditioning and emotional factors.

Conformity and prestigious bias also largely shape the worldviews of the child because there is a natural inclination towards believing what majority of the people believe and to consider believes of "prestigious figures" as absolute truth.

The "practice what you preach" attitude further strengthens the view because we, as humans, have a natural bias leaning towards thinking what other people believe and practice as being true.

To a large extent we are products of our cultural learning and environments.

What I desire is that religions should be held under scrutiny, be questioned, put under investigation, thought about rationally rather being thought as a geographic, social or cultural "accident".

One of the, or I should say, the leading factor why children grew up "religious" is because of their parent's religion.

There is a massive credibility enhancing display in a child's surrounding while growing in a religious environment.

Social context influences our worldview and thinking to a large extent.

Studies suggest that many of the children who grow up to be "religious" is not through reasoning or rationale but through societal constraints, conditioning and emotional factors.

Conformity and prestigious bias also largely shape the worldviews of the child because there is a natural inclination towards believing what majority of the people believe and to consider believes of "prestigious figures" as absolute truth.

The "practice what you preach" attitude further strengthens the view because we, as humans, have a natural bias leaning towards thinking what other people believe and practice as being true.

To a large extent we are products of our cultural learning and environments.

What I desire is that religions should be held under scrutiny, be questioned, put under investigation, thought about rationally rather being thought as a geographic, social or cultural "accident".

Firstly..I don't mean it as a insult...I am just curious and inquiring

And by wrong i mean both subjectively and objectively wrong

The Creation Myth of Adam and Eve largely differs in both the context of theological framework and moral framework.

Abrahamic religions interpret the story in different and contrasting ways.

In Judaism there are two interpretations in the context of creation...one says that Adam and Eve were created simultaneously by God, other says that Eve was created first

Christianity draws its own interpretation in which Adam's creation was followed by Eve's.

Between Islam and Christianity contradictions arise due to the differences in the moral framework adopted by the religions.

In Christianity Eve was responsible for the "first sin" and a punishment was given to them whereas in Islam Adam and Eve are crowned as the father and mother of humanity,revered and god even forgive their sins

In Swahili texts and literature Adam is interpreted as displaying a act of "heroism" by willingly eating the apple of Eden so that he is able to go with Eden

The Creation Myth of Adam and Eve largely differs in both the context of theological framework and moral framework.

Abrahamic religions interpret the story in different and contrasting ways.

In Judaism there are two interpretations in the context of creation...one says that Adam and Eve were created simultaneously by God, other says that Adam was created first.

Christianity draws its own interpretation in which Adam's creation was followed by Eve's.

Between Islam and Christianity contradictions arise due to the differences in the moral framework adopted by the religions.

In Christianity Eve was responsible for the "first sin" and a punishment was given to them whereas in Islam Adam and Eve are crowned as the father and mother of humanity,revered and god even forgive their sins.

In Swahili texts and literature Adam is interpreted as displaying a act of "heroism" by willingly eating the apple of Eden so that he is able to go with Eden.

The Creation Myth of Adam and Eve largely differs in both the context of theological framework and moral framework.

Abrahamic religions interpret the story in different and contrasting ways.

In Judaism there are two interpretations in the context of creation...one says that Adam and Eve were created simultaneously by God, other says that Eve was created first

Christianity draws its own interpretation in which Adam's creation was followed by Eve's.

Between Islam and Christianity contradictions arise due to the differences in the moral framework adopted by the religions.

In Christianity Eve was responsible for the "first sin" and a punishment was given to them whereas in Islam Adam and Eve are crowned as the father and mother of humanity,revered and god even forgive their sins

In Swahili texts and literature Adam is interpreted as displaying a act of "heroism" by willingly eating the apple of Eden so that he is able to go with Eden

Everyone religon postulates that all things are changing so they must start from something uncaused or unchanged or perfect etc etc and just introduce "god"

islam calls it allah Christianity the holy god and sanatan dharma the brahman

But WHY?

why are they so bothered with change? Because they can't explain it??

i just can't make the jump of saying "since everything requires a cause therefore something supreme must have started it and postulate god"

its such a BIG LEAP both scientically and philosophically(with very less evidence)

and if god can exist without being created then universe also can

we are allowed to ask questions up till every cause except GOD

there they say god just exists or something like it's fundamental woven into universe and fancy stuff

ughh

I've been reading Aquinas's Five Ways, and after a lot of thought, I still can't shake the feeling that they're a sophisticated form of "God of the gaps."

My issue isn't with God itself—it's with the logic.

Aquinas argues that contingent or changing things require explanations and that an infinite regress of explanations "cannot be sufficient." He then concludes that there must be a necessary being: God.

But why?

It seems to me that the crucial step is simply asserted rather than demonstrated. Saying an infinite regress is unsatisfactory or that the universe cannot explain itself doesn't prove that a supernatural explanation is required.

History gives us plenty of reasons to be cautious here. Humans once attributed earthquakes, diseases, eclipses, and lightning to divine causes because we couldn't explain them. Science later provided natural explanations.

So when we ask:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Why do the laws of physics exist?

Why does this theory exist rather than another?

why should "God" be considered a better answer than "we don't know yet"?

And if we're allowed to posit one uncaused, necessary reality, why can't that reality simply be the universe itself (or existence itself) rather than God?

When people say, "God is necessary, so He doesn't need a cause," it feels like a special exemption: everything needs an explanation except the thing we've defined as not needing one.

To me, "God exists necessarily" doesn't solve the mystery—it relocates it.

Most importantly, not understanding something doesn't justify introducing a supernatural explanation. "I can't explain this" or "I don't think this explanation works" is not the same as "therefore God."

What am I missing here? Why is stopping at God philosophically preferable to stopping at the universe itself?

I've been reading Aquinas's Five Ways, and after a lot of thought, I still can't shake the feeling that they're a sophisticated form of "God of the gaps."

My issue isn't with God itself—it's with the logic.

Aquinas argues that contingent or changing things require explanations and that an infinite regress of explanations "cannot be sufficient." He then concludes that there must be a necessary being: God.

But why?

It seems to me that the crucial step is simply asserted rather than demonstrated. Saying an infinite regress is unsatisfactory or that the universe cannot explain itself doesn't prove that a supernatural explanation is required.

History gives us plenty of reasons to be cautious here. Humans once attributed earthquakes, diseases, eclipses, and lightning to divine causes because we couldn't explain them. Science later provided natural explanations.

So when we ask:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Why do the laws of physics exist?

Why does this theory exist rather than another?

why should "God" be considered a better answer than "we don't know yet"?

And if we're allowed to posit one uncaused, necessary reality, why can't that reality simply be the universe itself (or existence itself) rather than God?

When people say, "God is necessary, so He doesn't need a cause," it feels like a special exemption: everything needs an explanation except the thing we've defined as not needing one.

To me, "God exists necessarily" doesn't solve the mystery—it relocates it.

Most importantly, not understanding something doesn't justify introducing a supernatural explanation. "I can't explain this" or "I don't think this explanation works" is not the same as "therefore God."

What am I missing here? Why is stopping at God philosophically preferable to stopping at the universe itself?

his voice sounds like the skeleton is singing in their album covers(which is starting to grow on me)