P1. A perfect being cannot commit an error or regret any.
P2. According to Genesis 6:6, God experienced regret over the creation of humanity.
C. Therefore, God cannot be perfect for it made a big boo boo.
The doctrine of the Trinity was not taught as a formally defined creed by Jesus or the earliest generations of his followers. It was systematized and politically enforced in the 4th century under the influence of the Roman Empire, particularly during and after the reign of Constantine, as an attempt to unify competing Christian factions and stabilize imperial authority. The codification of Trinitarian dogma therefore reflects a process of post-Biblical theological development shaped by political necessity, ecclesiastical power struggles, and philosophical interpretation, rather than a clear and explicit revelation consistently proclaimed by all prophets.
No verse records Jesus saying:
Instead, Jesus repeatedly distinguished himself from God:
> “The Father is greater than I.”
> John 14:28
> “This is eternal life: that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
> John 17:3
The burden of proof falls on anyone claiming the Trinity was the central doctrine of salvation.
If it were essential:
The first centuries of Christianity contained major disagreements:
Groups included:
This proves there was no universally agreed doctrine from the beginning.
By the early 300s, theological disputes threatened imperial stability.
Constantine sought religious unity for political cohesion after becoming emperor of a fractured empire.
The Arian controversy especially divided bishops across the empire.
The Council of Nicaea in 325 CE was convened under imperial sponsorship primarily to settle this conflict.
Constantine himself:
This demonstrates political involvement in defining orthodoxy.
The full doctrine was not finalized at Nicaea.
Nicaea mainly addressed whether the Son was of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father.
The Holy Spirit’s co-equality was formalized later at the Council of Constantinople in 381 CE.
Therefore:
Not through a single explicit teaching of Jesus.
Terms central to Trinitarian doctrine came from Greek metaphysics:
These are philosophical categories, not prophetic language.
The doctrine became increasingly abstract and inaccessible to ordinary believers.
Contrast this with pure monotheism:
This is the consistent message of the prophets.
The historical evidence suggests that the Trinity emerged through centuries of theological dispute and imperial intervention rather than as a universally proclaimed teaching of Jesus and the prophets. The role of Roman political authority, especially under Constantine, was instrumental in transforming contested theological interpretations into binding orthodoxy. Therefore, the doctrine is better understood as a post-Biblical ecclesiastical construct shaped by history and politics than as an explicit foundational teaching of original monotheistic revelation.
P1. The inclusion of magic and supernatural beings makes it obvious that the Bible is fantasy fiction.
P2. Propaganda successfully convinces people to accept these obvious fantasy tales as the literal truth.
C. Therefore, people believe in magic because propaganda works.
The claim that the United States was founded as a “Judeo-Christian nation” is, quite frankly, one of the most persistent pieces of historical revisionism in modern American politics. It gets repeated so often that many people simply accept it as fact without ever stopping to examine whether the history actually supports it. It doesn’t. The entire argument depends on retroactively projecting today’s culture wars onto a group of eighteenth-century men who were, in reality, deeply wary of religious authority becoming intertwined with government power.
That does not mean religion played no role in early American life. Obviously it did. Christianity influenced colonial culture, social norms, education, and public morality in countless ways. But there is a massive difference between saying religion influenced society and claiming the United States government itself was founded as explicitly Christian. Those are not remotely the same thing, and people intentionally blur that distinction all the time.
Start with the Constitution itself, because that is supposedly the foundational blueprint for this “Christian nation.” The problem is that the document is overwhelmingly secular. It does not mention Jesus Christ. It does not reference the Bible. It does not establish Christianity as a national religion. In fact, the Constitution goes out of its way to avoid religious language almost entirely. That was not some accidental omission. It was intentional.
The Founders had spent their lives studying European history, and Europe had already demonstrated what happened when governments fused political authority with religious doctrine. Religious wars, state churches, persecution, inquisitions, sectarian violence. Centuries of bloodshed, all justified by people convinced God was on their side. The Founders wanted no part of replicating that system in the United States. That is precisely why the First Amendment exists in the form that it does. The government was deliberately stripped of the authority to establish religion because many of the men writing these documents believed concentrated religious power was dangerous.
And frankly, the intellectual roots of the American Revolution were far closer to the Enlightenment than to evangelical Christianity anyway. You can trace the DNA of the American system directly to Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Enlightenment rationalism. Ideas like natural rights, separation of powers, representative government, and individual liberty did not emerge from biblical literalism. They emerged from political philosophy.
Even the language used in the Declaration of Independence reflects this. Jefferson’s references to “Nature’s God” and a “Creator” sound far more like the language of deism than orthodox Christianity. That distinction matters. Deists generally believed in some form of higher power, but they rejected organized religion, miracles, and rigid church doctrine. Jefferson himself literally edited miracles out of the New Testament because he viewed Jesus primarily as a moral philosopher rather than a divine savior. Benjamin Franklin openly questioned core Christian doctrines. James Madison spent much of his political career warning about the dangers of religious establishment. These were not men trying to build a biblical republic.
The modern version of the Founders often portrayed in political rhetoric bears almost no resemblance to the complicated, Enlightenment-era skeptics they actually were. People want them to fit neatly into contemporary ideological boxes, but history rarely works that cleanly.
Then there is the Treaty of Tripoli, which completely demolishes the “Christian nation” argument all by itself. Signed by John Adams in 1797 and ratified unanimously by the Senate, the treaty explicitly states that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” That is not some obscure quote pulled from a private letter or diary entry. It was an official statement issued by the federal government during the Founding era itself.
And yet this document is constantly ignored because it is incredibly inconvenient for the narrative. If the Founders truly intended to establish a Christian state, they had a very strange way of communicating that intention.
What is especially ironic is that the phrase “Judeo-Christian values” is itself relatively modern. The Founders did not go around using that terminology. The phrase became politically popular during the Cold War when American leaders wanted to contrast the United States with officially atheistic Soviet communism. Later, especially beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, the religious right increasingly adopted it as part of a broader political identity. Over time, it evolved into less of a historical description and more of a cultural loyalty test.
That is why so much of this debate feels historically dishonest. It takes modern political coalitions and projects them backward onto people who lived in an entirely different intellectual world.
None of this means America is anti-religious. It never has been. The United States has historically been one of the most religious countries in the Western world. Religious belief has shaped communities, inspired reform movements, built charities, and influenced public life for centuries. But the brilliance of the American system was never that it elevated one religion above all others. It was that it prevented the state from gaining the power to enforce religious conformity in the first place.
That distinction is everything.
A country can have deeply religious citizens while still maintaining a secular constitutional framework. In fact, that framework is exactly what protects religious freedom. Once the government gains the authority to privilege one faith, everyone else eventually becomes less free. The Founders understood that better than many modern politicians seem to.
So no, the United States was not founded as a “Judeo-Christian nation” in the way that phrase is commonly used today. It was founded as a secular republic built on Enlightenment principles, constitutional limits on power, and religious liberty for all. That is not an attack on religion. If anything, it is one of the main reasons religion was able to flourish here without becoming subordinate to the state itself.
Ironically, the separation so many people now criticize may be one of the greatest protections religion ever received from the Founders in the first place.
Discussion:
1) What political or cultural purposes are served by promoting the idea that the United States was founded explicitly on “Judeo-Christian values,” even when the historical evidence is more complicated?
2) Why do you think the “Christian nation” narrative has become more politically powerful in recent decades, and what does that suggest about modern American identity and polarization?
3) Does framing America as a nation founded on Christian values strengthen national unity by appealing to shared traditions, or does it risk excluding people whose beliefs fall outside that framework?
In order for me to believe the bible narratives from old to new testaments, I'd have to believe in the supernatural.
I don't believe in the supernatural. So, I can't believe in the bible stories.
Do they include bits of actual history apart from the magic bits?
Yes, the bible, just like many other other fictional stories includes real people, real events in real places.
Jerusalem was real, Pontius Pilate was real, crucifixions did happen.
But it also includes fictional characters, mythical events in fantasy places.
Heaven isn't real, Satan isn't real, and the resurrection never happened.
One of the easiest ways to know if a story is fictional or not is the inclusion of magic, of supernatural beings in mythical places.
It's a bit TOO obvious that the bible is fantasy fiction. These fantasy tales are taken as the "Truth" with a capital T ...
Propaganda works !!
THESIS: The disciples (or 1-2 disciples) stealing the body of Jesus and falsely claiming he rose from the dead, to obtain money and power, is the simplest explanation for how Christianity arose and, when human nature and the biblical evidence is analyzed carefully, it remains compelling in spite of Christian apologetics.
It is a common claim among Christian apologetics that the disciples were sincere in their belief that the Resurrection happened. The disciples claimed that certain events were witnessed by the disciples (the empty tomb + meeting personally with the living Jesus after he was buried). Thus, a group of at least a dozen people would have to knowingly lie in the face of substantial danger and punishment in order to fake the resurrection. Because this sort of mass lying is unusual, we have a substantial reason to believe that the resurrection could have been true. William Lane Craig and CS Lewis, among other apologists, have both developed this argument at length.
To deconstruct this claim, we need 3 elements. 1) An observation that it is common for a small minority of individuals to take enormous risks to tell lies. 2) An examination of the biblical evidence, which shows that the risks the disciples experienced in their first years of spreading Christianity were not large. The disciples did not die for Christianity; they only RISKED their lives for Christianity. This is an important distinction. 3) A consideration of the rewards the disciples could have gained from faking Christianity.
Part 1: It is common for people to risk their lives to tell lies.
Risking death is not something people we know in everyday life would do. But are there individuals who would risk their lives to tell lies? The answer to this question is yes. Like the rarest of creatures, monsters who tell enormous lies do exist.
Take the example of Donald Trump. Donald Trump claimed he won the 2020 election in public. But in private, he personally admitted that he lost. Jack Smith (former Special Counsel) said Trump acknowledged to others that he lost, citing remarks along the lines of “Can you believe I lost to this f’ing guy?”, per testimony released by the House Judiciary Committee. January 6 Committee-related testimony/reporting included aides describing Trump saying things to the effect of not wanting people to know they lost.
Denying the 2020 election results, while it wouldn't literally result in a risk of crucifixition, is such a high risk that it is analogous to the risk the disciples would have taken to testify that the resurrection is false. Trump's attempt to stay in power in 2020 could have resulted in public humiliation and imprisonment, civil war, or assassination. And Trump was almost assassinated four years later, in part because people accused him of treason.
Thus, if one or two of the disciples were like Donald Trump, we can say it is psychologically possible they could have taken an enormous risk to create the lie of the resurrection. What if Peter was a psychopath or sociopath who was willing to shamelessly lie, deceive, and manipulate others?
It's unusual to risk your life for something you personally fabricated.... but people risk their lives for unusual things. Thankfully, modern day conservatives frequently accuse other people of being liars and thus helpfully illustrate that fact. A majority of the current GOP believes COVID leaked from a lab (It didn't ) and the 2020 election was fraudulent. 40% and 35% respectively believe 9/11 was carried out by the US government and NASA faked the moon landing. And apparently the government does lie, as evidenced by the government reaction to the Alex Pretti shootings, or the government's current stance on vaccines. Apparently there was a giant conspiracy of pedophiles, as evidenced by the Epstein scandals.
Now, regardless of what the specific conspiracies are, and which conspiracies are true, we can abstract away a more fundamental truth from these conspiracy theory claim. That truth is that, contrary to William Lane Craig or CS Lewis's worldview, it is normal and common for people to take enormous risks to tell lies. On the right, we regularly have people who risk their entire livelihoods (and for that matter, who have made their entire livelihoods), out of telling big lies to other people. And if they are not lying (if, say, the moon landing was faked or the 2020 election was stolen), it would still be the case that there are monsters out there who would be willing to risk their lives to tell lies.
In fact, if you are Candice Owens or Alex Jones, you have EVEN MORE reason to believe the Christian apostles were liars. This is because in the modern conservative worldview, there are an even greater number of people willing to tell lies. The people who stuffed ballots in the 2020 election are lying to you; the doctors who say vaccines are safe are lying to you; the scientists who say evolution is true are lying to you.
We would be remiss to think that these creatures, people who shamelessly risk everything to deceive others, exist only in the modern age. On the left we have people like Jessie Smollett, who faked a hate crime to gain notoriety. Other historic individuals include Robert Hubbard, who falsely claimed he started the Great Fire of London in 1666 and was executed for his claims; William Chaloner; or William Dodd, conmen who were hanged in 1699. The Book of Mormon is almost certainly a forgery, but it is the foundation text of the religion of Mormonism. So it is common for a certain class of people to risk their lives to deceive others.
The case for the Resurrection rests on an assumption about human nature. That assumption is that people are fundamentally trustworthy when confronted with risk. But this assumption is fundamentally incompatible with human nature. If so many people are willing to stake their entire livelihoods and, indeed, their very lives on things they know are lies, then what license do you have to believe the witnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus were not also liars? The answer is you don't have a license to believe that. Thus, belief in Jesus is just a Nietzschean will-to-power instrument that is meant to aggrandize the self and not reflect anything that happened in history or reality.
Part 2: Christian apologists exaggerate the risks the disciples took in spreading Christianity.
The risks the disciples took upon themselves for spreading Christianity are exaggerated by Christian apologetics. To illustrate, let us examine two instances where the disciples who claimed to have seen the resurrection are confronted by the authorities.
In Acts Chapter 5 the disciples are arrested by the Jewish temple authorities, and in Acts Chapter 12, Peter is arrested by Herod. In both of these instances, the disciples miraculously escape after being released by an angel. After this, however, something very strange happens. The authorities do not pursue the disciples even though they have escaped!
If the disciples were truly in danger from the authorities for spreading Christianity, then they would have been pursued by the authorities even after miraculously escaping prison. Examining why they were not pursued shows us that the idea that "the disciples wouldn't have died for a lie; hence, they were sincere" is false.
In Acts Chapter 5, we see that the disciples were potentially capable of using mob violence to deter the authorities. To quote Acts 5:25-26:
> 25 Then someone came and said, “Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people.” 26 At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.
And to quote Acts 5:33-37:
> 33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.
So we see here that the Jewish authorities are deterred from using force against the early Christians because they fear being stoned. We also see that the Jewish authorities view the disciples as comparable to other armed rebels. So, the reason why the disciples were not rearrested the first time the "angel" broke them out of prison, is because the authorities were afraid of mob violence.
Moving on to the second time an Apostle is arrested, Acts 12 states:
> Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church. 2 Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 3 And because he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to seize Peter also.
So we see here that Herod was sympathetic to the Jews who were against the early Christians. This is why Peter is arrested here. But shortly after an "angel" releases Peter, Herod dies. He is replaced by a Roman procurator, Cuspius Fadus. The Romans had far less incentive to indulge the Jewish authorities and were often at odds with them. Roman authorities tried to retain control of Jewish priestly symbols and appointments and also tried to take money from the temple treasury.
These conflicts eventually turned into literal conflicts when the Jews revolted and were ultimately exiled by the Romans. To give us some flavor for who the people were, Josephus records the death of one of the witnesses to the supposed resurrection of Jesus, namely, James the Just. James the Just was killed by Ananus ben Ananus during a gap in Roman authority when a new Roman procurator, Lucceius Albinus, had not yet arrived in Jerusalem. Albinus actually punished Ananus for killing the apostle by removing him from the priesthood, and eventually, Ananus would go on to lead the Great Revolt of Judea against Roman authority.
Thus, in Acts Chapter 12, Peter is not pursued by the authorities after escaping prison because the authorities simply have different motivations. The Jewish authorities want to preserve the Jewish religion, while the Romans don't care about the Jewish religion and, in fact, have a political incentive to subvert, control, and undermine it. But... if the Romans didn't initially care about Christianity, then again, the risks the disciples experienced were not that high.
Finally, any case against the resurrection of Jesus would be remiss if we did not mention the fate of the 12 apostles. The accounts of the martyrdoms of the apostles were often long after the apostles supposedly died. During this time many authors wrote the Gnostic gospels, which were spurious accounts of Jesus's life, so the accounts of the apostles' martyrdoms could also be spurious (again, you need to consider that lies are common). The accounts are also often in conflict with each other.
The accounts for Bartholomew (Nathaniel), Jude (Judas Thaddaeus), Simon the Zealot, and Matthew (Levi) list inconsistent methods and locations for their executions. The acts of Philip and the accounts of Matthias were written centuries after they lived and are almost certainly legend. The very earliest versions of the Acts of Andrew don't record a full death sequence, and accounts written centuries later fictionalize Andrew's death. The accounts for Thomas place the story of his death multiple locations; some say he died in Iran, others say he died in India, and again they were written a century after he died. John, son of Zebedee,again, didn't die according to the earliest sources, but a fourth-century source tried to claim that he died anyway.
So for 75% of the 12 apostles, you can make a case that the martyrdom accounts are as reliable as the Gnostic gospels are for the accounts of Jesus's life. Which means if you want to claim Jesus rose from the dead based on witness testimony, you're really basing your claim on at most three martyrdom accounts. Those martyrdom accounts are Peter; James the Just (recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus); and James the Great (recorded in Acts as having been killed by Herod by the sword). Believing a supernatural event occurred because three people died for what was potentially a lie, after living relatively rich lives in Jerusalem, is relatively weak evidence.
To further illustrate the point, Paul only mentions meeting about 3 of the disciples in his letters, Peter, James, and John. This again gives us a hint that only a couple of the 12 disciples were the originators of the idea of the Resurrection, making a lie more plausible.
Part 3: The disciples could have been motivated to spread Christianity for money and status.
Finally, due to Christianity, the disciples very much gained wealth, power, and comfort relative to their former lot in life.
The early Christians gave the disciples all their possessions, per Acts 4:34-35.
> Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.
If you did not fully sell all your possessions to the disciples, this was considered a terrible sin, and you were killed (or, if we hope to take the passage non-literally, hopefully ostracized). We see this in Acts 5:1-11:
>Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
> 3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
> Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. 6 And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.
Finally, Judas betrayed Jesus because Jesus received very expensive perfume and used it for himself instead of giving the money to the poor. This passage, in Mark 14, is easy to spiritualize, but when interpreted in the context of how cult leaders act, it tracks how they behave.
> And being in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, as He sat at the table, a woman came having an alabaster flask of very costly flask of perfume. Then she broke the flask and poured it on His head. 4 But there were some who were indignant among themselves, and said, “Why was this fragrant oil wasted? 5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.” And they criticized her sharply.
> 6But Jesus said, “Leave her alone; why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful deed to Me. 7The poor you will always have with you,d and you can help them whenever you want. But you will not always have Me.
> 10 Then Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Him to them. 11 And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money.
So in summary, the disciples went from relatively poor fishermen to rich cult leaders in Jerusalem. This is the motivation for the originators of the lie of the resurrection, to risk death to tell things they knew were lies.
Conclusion
When considering the truth of Christianity, we have two hypotheses. The two hypotheses are "the disciples saw a miracle and sincerely believed" vs "the disciples were a mix of lying sociopaths and emotionally vulnerable cult members". The two hypotheses can both explain our experiences, so we have to rely on our priors (in a Bayesian sense). For the latter hypothesis, we have a strong prior probability of liars. But for the former hypothesis, we would need an even stronger prior probability of a miracle. People's priors for miracles to explain events are low, and this prior would have to be even bigger because it would have to outweigh the prior of fraud.
Therefore, Christianity is an irrational faith. Once priors are correctly calibrated against human nature, and once the biblical evidence is properly examined, the fraud explanation for Christian origins outweighs the divine explanation. Thus no reasonable person would choose Christianity as a path to the divine.
POSTSCRIPT: The Future
The future is vast. By the time New York City is as old as the pyramids (that is, 4000 years from now), 5x as many humans who have ever existed will come into existence. And all these people will be more free, more wise and sophisticated, more free of disease, more knowledgeable, and more powerful and wealthier than any human beings who have previously existed, including ourselves.
Christianity is a beautiful and admirable set of beliefs and practices. Giving up Christianity does not mean you have to give up belief in metaphysics. It does not even mean you have to give up belief in the wisdom of Christianity. People sometimes claim Christianity originated from a hallucination or vision, and in a metaphorical way, it did. But a vision can still inspire us to be our best selves, even if it is not real.
But at this stage of human history, it is unlikely that humanity has discovered the fundamental truth about God and human existence. The tragic truth of Christianity is that by committing yourself to Christianity, you cut yourself off from discovering the ultimate truth about God, existence, and yourself, which likely has yet to be discovered.
The future is vast, and life is getting better for humanity over long timescales. If you can't have faith in Jesus, have faith in the future.
Evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant Christians consistently report the highest support for, and use of, corporal punishment compared with other religious groups. Surveys have found that around 80% of born-again Christians in the USA approve of corporal punishment. Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians commonly use the Bible, specifically verses such as Proverbs 23:13-14, to support the practice of corporal punishment. The belief that the Bible supports corporal punishment comes from Biblical literalism - the belief that the Bible should be taken as literally as possible.
Michael Pearl, a pastor from Tennessee, published a book called "To Train Up a Child," which has sold over 1.2 million copies. Pearl's book recommends spanking kids with belts, tree branches, and plumbing lines. It tells parents to begin spanking their children while they are still babies, beginning at 5-6 months old.
Tedd Tripp, a pastor from Pennsylvania, published a book called "Shepherding a Child's Heart," which has sold more than one million copies and has been a significant influence on evangelical Christian parenting. Tripp's book recommends spanking kids with paddles.
Both books teach that corporal punishment is commanded by God, and that parents who do not spank their children are disobeying God.
My parents, who are evangelical Christian missionaries, were very physically abusive towards me as a child. They carefully followed the "Biblical" parenting advice of Michael Pearl and Tedd Tripp. They believed that God commanded spanking in the Bible, and that they were doing God's will.
Spanking totally destroyed my childhood relationship with Jesus and completely killed me within my soul.
I had a close relationship with Jesus before I was 5. After I turned 5 years old, I prayed to Satan instead of Jesus. I reasoned that if Jesus was the one who inspired the Bible verses that told my parents to spank me, then I should pray to whoever opposed Jesus.
Later, when I was 8 years old, I told my dad that I didn't believe in God anymore because of spanking. I could not believe in a God who was actively harming and destroying children through verses like Proverbs 23:13-14. My dad told me, "Well, that's a really dumb reason not to believe in God," and kept on spanking me.
I hope that hell exists so that Tedd Tripp and Michael Pearl can burn in it. Congratulations to all recipients of the millstone award. Jesus said that if anyone causes a little one who believes in him to stumble, it would be better for that person to have a millstone tied around their neck and be thrown into the depths of the sea.
Jesus is not coming back.
The bible makes it very clear, repeatedly, that Jesus vowed to return to earth, descending from the clouds with a host of angels, while his disciples, accusers and executioners were still living.
We find this promise in the gospels, the epistles of the apostle Paul, and the book of Revelation.
By the time the last-written gospel, John, was published, the author knew these prophecies were not going to materialize. He turned Jesus into the Greek LOGOS (the “Word”) and the Creator of the Universe, but he wasn’t going to return from the clouds as the other gospel writers promised.
However the authors of the other three gospels, and of Revelation and the Pauline epistles, made it very clear that Jesus was going to return before everyone died.
Jesus vowed that he would return during the lifetimes of his disciples. When this didn’t happen and Christians started dying, the apostle Paul had to rationalize things, as in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18:
>But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Jesus' own prophecy (Matthew 24:34)
>Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
The gospels make it clear that “this generation” means the disciples standing before Jesus as he spoke.
Matthew 24:29-34 explains what was to be fulfilled while the generation listening to Jesus was still alive:
>Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. > >Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Matthew makes it clear that “this generation” means the disciples standing before Jesus:
Matthew 16: 27-28
>For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
It is possible that “some” was an interpolation added after early Christians began dying and Jesus had not returned as promised.
Luke 9:27
>But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.
Luke 21:32:
>Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
Mark 9:1
Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Mark 13:30
>Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
In Mark 14:62, Jesus told his accusers — the high priest Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin — that they would see his return:
>And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Revelation 1:
>The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John... 3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand...Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
The writer is anticipating that those who executed Jesus will see his return.
Revelation 22:10
>And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
The earliest Christians were expecting Jesus to return during their lifetimes.
Here is Paul again, in 1 Corinthians 15
> Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep (i.e., die), but we shall all be changed,
But of course they all did die without Jesus returning in power from the clouds with a host of angels, and every human eye seeing his return.
The things to be fulfilled while the people of that generation were still alive included:
*The sun darkened. *The moon no longer shining. *Stars falling from the sky and the heavens shaken. *Jesus appearing in the clouds with power and great glory, to be seen by all the people of the earth. *The angels appearing with the great sound of a trumpet to gather the elect from every part of the earth.
None of these things happened during the first century AD, when that generation was alive.
Some pastors make their livings by taking passages from the Bible to impute end-times prophesies in our modern age. For example, Greg Laurie mentions Iran. He scares people, and brings in generous tithes and offerings. But, he is just bullshitting.
But, it is all nonsense. Jesus did not return, and bring about the end of the world, while anyone he knew was still alive, as purportedly promised. He certainly isn't going to return now, or any time in the future.
We turn to religion to answer life’s deepest questions: Humans turn to religion to answer life’s deepest questions: Who are we? Why do we exist? How did existence arise? Could a God exist? Life then becomes a search for truth, a journey where you arrive at your own answers. However, most of us inherit a truth before we ever begin searching for one. Religion becomes something accepted rather than examined, and many people never undertake their own journey to answer those questions for themselves.
Truth-seeking should begin openly, not with conclusions: Firstly, do you agree that we ought to search for the truth with the perspective of a non-believer? It would be irrational to first believe in a deity then look for evidence because you would be prone to bias. We must follow any and all evidence to its conclusion, rather than starting with the conclusion (Jesus is God) and cherry-picking data that is in support while ignoring what isn’t. If you can demonstrate that a deity exists only then is it time to believe.
If you disagree, do you know what the beliefs of all the major sects of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism are and what they believe? Most people have not seriously studied even one other religion’s texts, let alone all major religions or what it means to experience life from another worldview. A genuine truth-seeker should follow evidence, reason, and moral intuition wherever they lead, rather than assuming the conclusion beforehand. The Christian expects the Muslim to seriously investigate Christianity and the Muslim expects the Christian to seriously investigate Islam, it would be hypocritical to expect others to deeply examine your religion while refusing to give the same openness and consideration to theirs, and that applies to all religions.
I ask that you read this with a pure heart, as a non-believer would, genuinely considering my questions and leaving all possibilities open. If you are not open to all possibilities and to the possibility of your religion being wrong, how is it fair to expect other people to do the same for your religion?
You cannot use a religion’s assumptions to prove itself: Secondly, do you agree that it would be irrational for someone seeking truth without any bias to explain away contradictions in a religion through appeals to divine mystery, higher authority, or human limitation? If a person does not yet believe in a particular God, then they cannot reasonably use that God’s supposed nature or intentions to resolve problems within the religion itself. An impartial truth-seeker would not defer to claims such as “we are incapable of understanding God’s ways,” because the existence of that deity has not yet been established in the first place.
If you disagree, how would you feel if I quoted your opposition’s religion, whether it be say Hinduism or Islam’s texts, and told you that this book is the real word of God, and I rationalized whatever issues may be present in the doctrine using the religious book or human limitation, saying you just can’t understand Allah? You would disagree because you have not found sufficient evidence to believe that their God exists or that book to be the true word of God in the first place. Likewise, the Bible cannot simply be assumed to be the word of God during an impartial search for truth; that is precisely what must first be demonstrated. Otherwise, any contradiction or moral concern can be dismissed through appeals to divine mystery or human limitation, which results in circular reasoning. One cannot use God’s existence to justify problems within a religion when that existence is the very thing still under examination.
Christian doctrine: God is calling out to everyone. If you heard of his message, you are responsible for having the free will to reject God. If you reject God, you choose hell, separation from God. It’s not torture – because you freely chose to live apart from God, you also chose separation from the source of Goodness. God doesn’t desire for you to go there, but you bear responsibility for your actions. It’s your fault if you researched Christianity and found the evidence insufficient. This only means you didn’t research Christianity enough, because if you had looked into it deeply enough, you’d know it’s the right one.
Because of the verses below it seems reasonable to conclude that anyone who hears the message of Jesus Christ yet refuses to accept him as Lord and Savior and ask for forgiveness of his sins chooses eternal conscious torment — separation from God. Christianity places moral responsibility on the individual for rejecting the source of Goodness itself while living their earthly life. For this reason, inclusive interpretations — such as the idea that God judges individuals merely according to the “light available to them” — become difficult to reconcile with the exclusivist language found throughout the Bible. If salvation can be attained without acceptance of Christ then verses like John 14:6 and Mark 16:16 lose much of their meaning and urgency. The doctrine then becomes inconsistent: either explicit acceptance of Christ is necessary for salvation, or it is not. The large majority of Christians believe that salvation comes uniquely through Jesus Christ. Because of this, we will continue examining Christianity from a primarily exclusivist perspective: the view that explicit acceptance of Christ is necessary for salvation.
So, as stated in the introduction, you cannot use a disputed conclusion (the Christian God exists) to justify itself during investigation. A religion that can explain away every contradiction through divine mystery becomes immune to criticism by definition, because then every other religion would have that privilege. If a God truly existed and intended to be known, his existence should be evident through the very human capacities we naturally possess — reason and morality — rather than requiring us to first presume his existence in order to reconcile ideas that appear irrational or morally contradictory. If a religion only makes sense once a person dismisses their own logic or morality by appealing to divine mystery or human limitation then belief is no longer being grounded in reason, but in presupposition. An impartial truth-seeker cannot assume a God exists in order to explain away the very contradictions that call that God into question. My argument is that for me to accept that the Christian God exists I would have to first do away with my reason and morality, because the Christian God is completely contradictory. A true God should not fundamentally contradict reason or morality.
Firstly, would you agree that no religion has a privileged evidential claim sufficient enough to convince others? There is no practitioner that is able to go up to another practitioner and give them evidence that would convince them their God is true and exists. Each practitioner is capable of believing with equal passion, have their own personal reasons for why they believe, and even have direct experience in the form of visions in meditation, dreams, a voice heard back, synchronicities, or the like. If imperfect beings can be completely and equally convinced that their religion is true and there is no demonstrable proof that they can provide, how could a Just and Loving God orchestrate such a system that would lead nonresistant nonbelievers so easily astray, which rewards you for factors that are completely out of your hands?
If there exists sincere non-believers that are nonresistant and would believe had they been provided with sufficient evidence, and God did not provide them that evidence, then he would be at fault. For what reason would a personal and loving God hide their existence from people who would love and worship them otherwise had they known he existed? You can’t explain this away with divine mystery – one cannot assume a God exists in order to explain away the very contradictions that call that God into question. According to our human capacities, reason and morality, a personal and loving God would always provide the sincere nonresistant non-believer with the sufficient evidence they would need to believe, because he wants to have a relationship with everyone that is open to him. Most rational people wouldn’t just believe in a deity because of witness testimony that according to man-made stories occurred thousands of years ago, prone to human error. Who is to say it isn’t just an entirely made up story (because we have no confirmation of any of the statements), or even if he existed, if Paul and others didn’t just write mythologized things about him following his death, or whether anyone actually even saw Jesus arise, which could instead be a story they made up, a dream, or a vision from psychedelic drugs as people from that time often partook?
Direct experience, information through our own senses, is the most trustworthy source of information, whereas second hand information, from other people, is much less trustworthy, especially information passed down over thousands of years. There are many people who claim to have direct experience of their truth, and no one has the right to say mine is more real than yours, because we are imperfect beings. No one is justified to say to another my God will sentence you to eternal suffering if you don’t believe in what I believe.
Some may say that God values freely chosen relationships, not coercion, and that if God revealed himself belief would become unavoidable. That is false because Satan knows God exists and still chooses to rebel — knowledge does not destroy free will. A loving God could reveal his existence clearly without forcing love. Also, throughout the Bible, God revealed himself directly to countless individuals who still chose to reject him, showing that clear knowledge of God does not eliminate free will. Why is it fair for some to receive overwhelming revelation while sincere nonresistant non-believers today do not receive sufficient evidence, if any?
I ask you this question: Are we, limited and finite beings, qualified to make decisions that would result in infinite punishment? We are not due to our imperfect nature and understanding. We are never making free decisions because we are largely influenced by other factors. Geographic location largely determines birth religion and factors like Indoctrination, culture, and social ostracism make it so that a large majority of believers remain in their birth religion – these explain away the large majority of religious belief more than an impartial search for truth does. The large majority of Christians in Christian countries remain Christian, and the large majority of Muslims in Muslim countries remain Muslim.
Imagine you were a Hindu monk, living a life according to your teachings. You live a life dedicated to your spiritual pursuit with minimal possessions and aspiring to live in the present, satisfied with what you have, letting go of the attachments that come with our body such as the never-ending desire for more and lack of peace in the moment. Christians came to your city and told you about Jesus, but you ignored them because there is no evidence for their truth except words in a book, whereas you had encountered your truth through your own direct experience by way of meditation. They have not even presented proof of the Christian God and dare say that if you don’t completely reject everything you are, take Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, their God will torture you forever, even though you are trying your best to be as kind to everyone as you could be. What did the Christian do to deserve being born in the correct religion, whereas you would have to go against your entire life and culture, face social ostracism, figure out what the correct religion is, and only then would you be saved? Why would someone throw their direct experience away in favor of someone’s blind faith? Is there any evidence of the Christian God that you could give a Hindu monk that could stand up to their direct experience?
We are also influenced by other factors such as poor information, bias, culture (identity), neurobiology, psychology and more. How could limited mortal beings with imperfect understanding have the power to make an eternal decision based on that imperfect information and imperfect understanding? To put humans in that situation is cruel.
Both the Bible and the Quran both state that their God is self-evident:
However, if either was self-evident, why hasn’t one of them woken up from their illusion? One could be reasonably justified to state that the existence of a Creator is self-evident, because isn’t it odd that there is existence at all? Wouldn’t it have been easier for there to have been nothing? If you woke up from unconscious sleep in your birth as a baby, then wouldn’t it be logical to assume you will do the same after you fall into slumber (death) again, since you did it before? However, both the Bible and Qu’ran state that the existence of their God is self-evident, which is not so. It is fair to believe that a God exists, but if you also add that your God will eternally torture me for non-belief, then you have the much larger burden of proof of proving he exists in the first place – he cannot be assumed into existence because no reasonable and loving human would choose to eternally torture another human for finite wrongdoing.
The fact that sincere, intelligent people across contradictory religions all report certainty and spiritual experiences weakens the claim that the Christian God is self-evident.
Even if by some miracle we mortal beings were qualified to make such a decision, does finite wrongdoing justify eternal suffering?
Imagine an existence where you are suffering every single day of your life, there is no end to the fire. What did you do that was so bad that warranted this kind of punishment? The worst things I have done would probably be physical or non-physical arguments with others, do you think that is deserving of eternal suffering? If someone you loved were to kill you, would you say an eye for an eye? Would you want them to be eternally tortured? Would you want the worst human in existence to be eternally tortured? I’m not loving enough to love even the person who hurts myself or my loved ones. An omnibenevolent being would love all, even those who hurt them. Yet I can say such a punishment would be unfair, but an omnibenevolent being cannot? Are you or I better than God? We cannot explain this incoherence using human limitation or God’s mystery. Any problems must have a solution using our human capacities, otherwise non-believers would just be out of luck. God’s love isn’t just so much greater than any love you could have, but it is unconditional love. Unconditional love is loving in spite of imperfections, unwavering, and selfless affection focused on another’s happiness and well-being without strings attached, expectations, or limitations, regardless of their actions, flaws, or circumstances. Why would a God, a being who is perfect, all loving, want to torture you forever? Doesn’t he have anything better to do?
Some people may say that the gravity of an offense is determined by the nature of the being offended. If you kick a rock, it is nothing; if you kick a dog, it is a crime; if you commit treason against a nation, it is a life-altering offense. Since God is infinitely good, rejection of that being is not a finite mistake but a rejection of the very source of goodness itself, you cannot judge the proportion of the punishment while ignoring the infinite scale of the one being rejected.
However, this argument quickly falls apart. If God is infinitely good, then his mercy, understanding, patience, and compassion should also be infinite. An infinitely wise being would fully understand the limitations of finite humans: our ignorance, psychology, culture, trauma, biology, and confusion. No perfectly loving and understanding creator would make it possible to be entirely convinced of your nonexistence, but in another religion or creator, then also choose to sentence you to eternal suffering because of that finite nature and understanding. Secondly, finite creatures with finite understanding cannot commit infinite crimes. Eternal punishment ceases to look like perfect justice and instead resembles disproportionate vengeance. The morally greater a being is, the less vindictive and retaliatory they become — so why would the greatest conceivable being demand endless suffering from finite creatures he knowingly created? Such a creator would have infinite mercy and understand that it is an unjust proposition to expect imperfect humans to be able to reliably judge the truth or face eternal suffering.
Secondly, if God is both all powerful and all loving, why did he orchestrate a system where separation from him was entirely void of love, and closer to vengeance and infinite retribution?
If God loves you (affection and care for your well-being and happiness) and has infinite power to do anything he desires then ‘separation from Goodness’ could be annihilation. Just like he created you without your permission, he can also annihilate you without your permission. Eternal suffering is completely against unconditional love, and if you are also all powerful then you can come up with infinitely many solutions. If he doesn’t, then he doesn’t love you, forget unconditionally.
The Christian doctrine states that those who have heard of Jesus Christ and his message, and refuse to take him up as their Lord and Savior, willingly chose separation from God in an eternal hell. Eternal hell would mean that God has finite patience but an infinite capacity for violence and retribution. Are there some humans that cannot be redeemed at all in the eyes of God, like those that have not found the evidence sufficient to believe but otherwise would have?
It renders God’s love meaningless because no definition of love could include allowing infinite torture.
Would you agree that God created you, and he is all powerful, all loving, and all knowing?
If God created you, and is also all knowing and all powerful, then he would know your future before you were even created – he had foreknowledge of whether you would choose or reject Jesus Christ here on earth.
Yes, foreknowledge is not causation. Even though God knew what you would choose, God did not cause you to choose the actions you chose, we have free will and willingly chose to accept or reject Jesus Christ.
But this brings forward the question: Why would an all loving God create beings already knowing they are destined to suffer eternally?
A parent is accountable for the child’s actions if the child is given choices beyond their capacity. If you gave your child a blowtorch you are accountable if they end up burning themselves or someone else. Likewise, God would be accountable for creating creatures already knowing what choices they would make: giving limited, ignorant, and time-bound creatures responsibility for eternal decisions (with regard to a hell of eternal conscious torment) is far worse than handing a toddler a blowtorch, since the blowtorch doesn't burn for eternity the way that hell supposedly does.
If I was a genius robotic engineer and created an artificial machine fully knowing that it would destroy the world, and could have refrained from creating it, then I would be responsible if it proceeds to destroy the world. I had foreknowledge of what would happen and still intentionally created it despite being able to refrain from doing so. Likewise, an all loving, all powerful and all knowing God would be responsible for creating beings that he knows will choose eternal conscious torment, which is completely contradictory to the claim that he is all loving.
Would you choose to play this game that God orchestrated, now knowing everything that you know about its rules?
God created your soul without asking you if you want to exist, then forces you to participate in an entirely random luck of the draw spin wheel that gives you no choice of time, location, religion, and family, wherein if you don’t make the right choices in a finite life, you earn yourself infinite suffering for all of eternity?
If you happen to be unlucky and not spin Christianity, you would be looking out into the world with the lens of another worldview, completely convinced that your religion and identity is right just as the Christian believes himself to be right, because we are limited and imperfect mortal beings?
And if you happen to lose, you don’t even get the right to ask this God to annihilate you into nothingness the same way he created your soul without permission, but this loving God instead sentences you to eternal suffering? Eternal hell is beyond disproportionate and cannot be an earned punishment, no matter what a finite being does.
If you say this game is at all just or loving, you would be incredibly dishonest. Nobody would accept this proposition, as no one has a privileged evidential claim – just like the Muslim cannot convince you that Allah exists, you cannot convince the Muslim that Jesus exists. Each religion can provide you with evidence that would be reasonable to you, both believers capable of believing in their religion with equal passion, even receiving direct experience from their practice in the form of visions in meditation, dreams, a voice heard back, synchronicities, or the like.
You might say that I have no right to judge God based on my own human reason or moral intuition – that our moral intuition is fallen and limited, so apparent contradictions between divine justice and human fairness are not decisive objections against God’s existence. However, If human moral intuition is unable to judge whether eternal punishment is unjust, then humans are also too fallen and unreliable to judge that Christianity itself is true, that God is good, or that the Bible is morally trustworthy. You cannot appeal to human reason and moral intuition when arguing for Christianity then dismiss those same faculties the moment contradictions arise. If we need our reason and moral intuition to figure out which is the true God then the true God naturally cannot contradict those faculties.
Do you believe it would be justified to require individuals to compensate for historical injustices they did not personally commit?
That would be very irrational. If most people agree that individuals are not morally responsible for the actions of their ancestors, then it becomes difficult to justify taking from people today in order to compensate for wrongs committed by previous generations.
A person may belong to a socially “advantaged” group while having no inherited wealth, privilege, or connection to past injustices. If their achievements came through their own effort, why would it be just to hold them accountable for actions they never committed?
The same issue appears in the doctrine of original sin. If human beings are born without choosing their condition, why should they bear moral responsibility for the actions of Adam and Eve? Punishing descendants for the actions of others seems inconsistent with the principle that each individual is morally responsible only for their own choices.
Why would a human being, who is born a part of nature, capable of doing both good and bad, be required to ask for forgiveness of their sins to a God who has not proven himself to exist? We appear no different than animals, like the Lion who eats the Zebra. Does the Lion also ask God for forgiveness after he utilizes his natural-given nature? Why then ought humans ask for forgiveness when they utilize their nature of reason, morality, and free will?
Secondly, because Adam and Eve did not not have knowledge of good and evil before eating of the fruit, by any reasonable metric they should be blameless when they ate the fruit. For all they knew, the serpent was God’s creation, just like them, a friend, and not knowing of good or evil, they do not know that it is bad to disobey God and do as the serpent tells them.
Let me ask you this: How can any person of conscience enjoy Heaven knowing that others are in Hell?
It would be morally untenable unless believers have their memories of non-believers wiped, including family and friends, in which case would you still be the same human being, completely void of all of the people and experiences that made you who you are?
Questions like I understand it says God is all-powerful and He wants us to follow in trust, not fear. But if it were truly all-powerful, could He not simply set a path in front of us and make us follow it? Second, on atheism, I am not an atheist, but I question his existence. I have seen no proof, though I believe there is at least something that created us. But how can we be certain there is God? Humans are naturally cautious of foreign things they can't understand or fathom. So, what's your take? And on another note, if the bible is true and He won't destroy inhabitants on earth, why is the always floods and earthquakes, things humans can't prevent? I don't say fire cause some humans are a little slow and try setting things on fire.
For most people who study science and lay people who understand it, there is no "problem" of consciousenss insofar as we know that the brain creates it. It's not a mystery where it comes from. It comes from the brain. A lot of theists like to point to the hard problem as if it's some mystery that asks where consciousness even comes from, when it's not. Why physical matter in some arrrangements creates consciousness at all is quite a mystery, as well as why some arrangements create what appear to be higher levels of consciouesnss vs others. All of this still accepts that brains do, in fact, create conscoiusness.
Similarly, with the "source" or origin of the universe - it's pretty common for cosmologists and the like to accept that there is no "origin" of our universe and that it is as equally likely as anything else, if not more likely, that our universe has no "source" and just exists by brute fact that it always has. Theists like to point to the fact that the big bang claims that all matter and energy expanded from a single point as if that is pointing to the creation of our universe from nothing or rather, by something or someone. All the big bang claims is that everything expanded from a single point. We know that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. They just change forms. Thus, it's more likely than anything that all of the matter and energy that is in our universe is all there ever was and all there ever will be and needs no "source".
I say all of this to say, that these are the two of the last big "mysteries" that science has yet to answer and very well may never be able to answer (not, what "created" our universe, but in what state did it exist before the big bang and why was it like that). Three, if you want to count the origin of life from non-life, but I digress. *Jerk off motion* Neil Degrasse Tyson quote about God being an ever-receeding pocket of ignorance, but it's a salient point. These really aren't "problems" to most non-theists, or actually even a lot of theists. Most of Christian apologetics is creating problems that don't actually exist, and claiming that their god is the only solution. These two are the most glaring examples in our modern world.
Before we begin, I would like to establish a strict definitional boundary. Recently, while debating on other subreddits, several flaired atheists explicitly advised me that the "lack of belief" definition is merely a casual, fluid label that makes actual discourse impossible, and that the historical/philosophical definition (the active proposition that God does not exist) is the only proper definition for serious debate.
Therefore, this thread operates strictly under the academic definition of atheism. If your personal definition is simply a passive "lack of belief," please do not engage here. Also no changing definitions mid-discourse.
The Question: For the atheists here who actually hold a formal philosophical position: you are making an active, ontological claim about the nature of reality.
What is the positive logical or philosophical framework that justifies this claim?
Let’s assume that the Christian God is in fact real and does exist. Why does he act exactly as if he doesn’t exist? Why are there no medically documented and verified and obvious miracles happening? Why does God seem to be a concept in peoples minds rather than a real tangible entity in reality? Even if he does exist, he acts as if he doesn’t.
​
The central claim of this thesis is that every human being is religiously and morally obligated to accept Islam because Islam is the final revelation from the Creator to mankind through the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Since God is One, truth is one, and revelation cannot contradict itself in its final form, humanity is required to submit to the final preserved guidance sent by God. The Qur’an presents Islam not as an ethnic identity or regional tradition, but as the universal and final framework for human life, justice, morality, worship, and peace.
Allah said:
«“Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam.”
(Quran 3:19)»
And Allah said:
«“And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.”
(Quran 3:85)»
Islam begins with the most rational and necessary truth: there is only one Creator. The universe cannot create itself. Dependent things cannot ultimately explain their own existence. Everything contingent points to an independent, eternal source. The Qur’an forces mankind to confront this directly:
«“Were they created by nothing, or were they the creators of themselves?”
(Quran 52:35)»
If there is only one Creator, then worship belongs only to Him. No prophet, saint, idol, nation, bloodline, or created being can share in divine authority. Islam restores pure monotheism free from intermediaries and theological contradictions.
Allah said:
«“Say: He is Allah, One. Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born. And there is none comparable to Him.”
(Quran 112:1-4)»
The Qur’an further argues that guidance was not abandoned to human speculation. God sent prophets throughout history, including Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus عليهم السلام, all calling to the same core message: worship God alone and obey His revelation.
Allah said:
«“And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], ‘Worship Allah and avoid false gods.’”
(Quran 16:36)»
Islam therefore does not reject previous prophets. It affirms them while asserting that their original teachings were altered, fragmented, or mixed with human additions over time. The coming of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is presented as the completion and preservation of divine guidance for all humanity.
Allah said:
«“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the seal of the prophets.”
(Quran 33:40)»
And Allah said:
«“Today I have perfected for you your religion, completed My favor upon you, and chosen for you Islam as your religion.”
(Quran 5:3)»
The claim that Islam is final is tied directly to preservation. Unlike previous scriptures with disputed authorship, missing originals, anonymous redactions, and conflicting manuscripts, the Qur’an was memorized, transmitted publicly, and preserved in its original language from the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ until today.
Allah said:
«“Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will preserve it.”
(Quran 15:9)»
The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ also did not present himself as a tribal reformer or philosopher. He claimed universal prophethood.
The Prophet ﷺ said:
«“Every prophet was sent only to his own people, but I have been sent to all mankind.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, 335)»
If God truly sent a final revelation for humanity, then rejecting it after knowing its message becomes a rejection of divine authority itself. Therefore, conversion to Islam is not merely a cultural preference. It is submission to truth as revealed by the Creator.
The purpose of human existence is also explicitly defined in Islam. Humanity was not created aimlessly for material consumption, nationalism, race, pleasure, or social competition.
Allah said:
«“I did not create jinn and mankind except to worship Me.”
(Quran 51:56)»
This worship is not restricted to rituals alone. Islam provides a complete ethical and civilizational framework governing family, economics, justice, charity, accountability, rights, and social order. Lasting peace cannot emerge merely through political treaties or economic systems while human beings remain spiritually disconnected from their Creator. Internal corruption inevitably produces external corruption.
Allah said:
«“Corruption has appeared on land and sea because of what the hands of people have earned.”
(Quran 30:41)»
Islam addresses the root problem: human rebellion against divine guidance. When human beings submit to God instead of their desires, ideologies, or power structures, justice becomes possible. Islam therefore presents itself not only as personal salvation, but as the only stable foundation for enduring global peace because it anchors morality in divine authority rather than changing human opinion.
The Qur’an calls humanity collectively:
«“O mankind, worship your Lord, who created you and those before you, that you may become righteous.”
(Quran 2:21)»
Thus, the conclusion of this thesis is that Islam is not merely one religion among many competing truths. If the Qur’an is truly revelation from God and Muhammad ﷺ is truly the final messenger, then every human being is obligated to accept Islam. Rejecting the final revelation after its clarification is not intellectual neutrality. It is refusal of the Creator’s final command to humanity.
The question therefore becomes unavoidable:
If one Creator sent one final revelation for all mankind, on what basis can any person justify rejecting it?
Widely mistaken as a real Biblical passage, even by Christian politicians on Twitter, Samuel L Jackson's quote in Pulp Fiction (about the wrath of God) proves the text is easily imitated to the degree that a fake verse can gain wide spread among Christians, while thousands of 10-year-old Muslim kids have memorized the Qur'an and couldn't be fooled as easily!
This is also a clear example of what a "surah like it" imitation challenge would have been, since the Hollywood verse is indeed similar to the Bible enough to be accepted in the American popular culture as Bible-like, something that never happened with any of the alleged Quran-like imitation attempts in the Islamic world.
This thread is for all your questions about Christianity. Want to know what's up with the bread and wine? Curious what people think about modern worship music? Ask it here.
Premise If morality is "objective" in the sense Christians often claim, then Biblical texts should be timeless, unchanging and universal, independent of culture or era.
The Bible contains:
endorsements or regulations of slavery,
forced marriage of raped and captive women,
execution for religious and sexual offenses,
divinely sanctioned massacres,
and stories involving child marriage.
Modern society criminalised these practices precisely because our moral intuitions evolved beyond the societies that produced the texts.
If Christians morality is "objectively" grounded in scripture, believers can never condemn practices their text permits, regulates, or sometimes commands.
Yet they have. Ergo appeals to objective morality are illogical and invalid.
Why don’t we just pray the Father / creator ?
Why do we have to involve Holy Spirit , Jesus , Virgin Mary etc
Why exactly don’t you just pray The Father , even if you say Jesus is the way (shouldn’t matter because Jesus and the Father are on the same page)
Premise: If God has an unchanging divine plan, then prayer cannot meaningfully alter outcomes, making petitionary prayer functionally impotent.
“Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”
— Numbers 31:17–18, N
This bible verse proves that god sanctioned the killings of women and innocent children and at the same time allowed his followers to take VIRGIN women as spoils!
This is completely unacceptable from the moral standards of modern times. How can god who Christians claim to be the source of morality be sanctioning such acts? So is god immoral or does this prove god is not real and is just made up by the people of those times
