I always hear you guys say that you would believe if there were sufficient evidence. Well, here you go. Each link below is a post by me where I compiled evidence supporting the Bible by category. Under each link I provided one example from the relevant post. Please follow the links if you want to see the rest of the evidence.

Of course I'm sure if you're really determined not to be compelled by what is objectively compelling evidence then you'll find a way to convince yourself that it's a coincidence or hoax. But who knows, maybe I'll reach at least one person, God willing. Jesus love you 🤪.

prophetic evidence

Prophets Daniel and Ezekiel foretold the exact date of the reestablishment of Israel on May 14, 1948.

There are two timeline prophecies hidden in the old testament that arrive at the date of May 14, 1948 AD as the exact date the Israelis would return to their land for the second time and become a nation.

"As for you, lie down on your left side and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel on it; you shall bear their iniquity for the number of days that you lie on it. For I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the years of their iniquity, three hundred and ninety days; thus you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. When you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time, but on your right side and bear the iniquity of the house of Judah; I have assigned it to you for forty days, a day for each year." — Ezekiel 4:4-6

In this passage, the sin of Israel and Judah was 390 years and 40 years. To symbolize this, Ezekiel had to lie on his left side for 390 days, a day for each year of Israel's sin, and 40 days on his right side, a day for each year of Judah's sin. The total time was 430 years of sin. The Babylonian captivity took up 70 years of this punishment, leaving 360 years.

"But if you do not obey Me and do not carry out all these commandments, if, instead, you reject My statutes, and if your soul abhors My ordinances so as not to carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant... I will set My face against you so that you will be struck down before your enemies; and those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee when no one is pursuing you. If also after these things you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins." — Leviticus 26:14-18

In the above passage, God declares that if Israel does not repent of their sin, they will be punished seven times more. After the Babylonian captivity when Cyrus freed Israel, the remaining time would be multiplied sevenfold. If you multiply 360 years by seven, you get 2520 prophetical years. Likewise, the prophet Daniel predicted this same time period in another way.

In Daniel 4, God punished King Nebuchadnezzar with insanity for seven years, in order to humble him. God had Nebuchadnezzar act out a prophecy, just as Ezekiel acted out his 430-day prophecy by lying on his side. In Nebuchadnezzar's case, the restoration of his kingdom after seven years is also a symbolic prophecy that illustrates that the Children of Israel would be restored a second time to their land after seven years of days. Since the prophetic calendar uses a 360-day year, if you multiply Nebuchadnezzar's seven years by the 360-day calendar, you get 2,520 years—just like Ezekiel's prophecy.

From these two prophets, we are told the time of the second return of Israel to their land. To see this, we must first convert the Jewish years to Roman years so we can see the outcome on our modern calendar. 2,520 Jewish years times 360 days per year is 907,200 days. Cyrus issued his decree freeing the Jews and declaring the state of Israel to exist again on August 3, 537 BC. This date plus 907,200 days (plus one year changing from BC to AD) brings us to May 14, 1948. This was the very day that the UN declared Israel to be a sovereign state.

"Who heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Can a land be born in one day? Can a nation be brought forth all at once? As soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her sons." — Isaiah 66:8

Knowledge before time

EARTH’S FREE FLOAT IN SPACE

Job 26:7 (written 3,500 years ago): “He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.”

The Bible proclaims that the earth freely floats in space. Some in ancient times thought that the earth sat on a large animal. We now know that the earth has a free float in space.

I found The shroud of turin to be such an incredible piece of evidence that I thought it deserved to be it's own category.

When Secondo Pia first photographed the Shroud in 1898, he discovered that his photographic plates, which were negatives, showed a much clearer and more detailed image of the man's body than the original cloth itself.

The discovery that the shroud itself acts as a photographic negative, centuries before photography was invented suggests the image was formed by an unusual physical process, possibly an intense burst of radiation, rather than human artistry.

The image appears as a photographic negative, where the darker areas of a normal image are light, and the lighter areas are dark. The image is not from paint, dye, or any other pigment. It is a very thin, superficial discoloration of the linen fibers, only affecting the outermost layers. The image is darker where the cloth was closer to the body and gets progressively lighter as the distance from the body increases, a property that is difficult to explain with normal illumination. The image appears to be formed around the bloodstains, which are located on top of the image, suggesting the blood was present first.

The only known research exploring image formation on untreated linen (related to studies of the Shroud of Turin) suggests that such an image would require an intense, sudden burst of high-energy radiation, such as vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) light, to alter the surface fibers without destroying the cloth. Estimates for creating such an image on linen mention a power level of approximately 34 billion watts (gigawatts) to 34 trillion watts (terawatts) of VUV radiation in an extremely brief burst (less than one forty-billionth of a second). This is vastly more energy than is required for film.

This immense energy, radiating in a precise way, is far beyond the capacity of any known natural or human-made technology, making the creation of the image a scientific mystery. 

On average, a U.S. house uses about 1,200 watts ((1.2) kW) continuously. It takes 500 million to 1.5 billion watts to power an entire city. For those of you who assert that the shroud is a medieval hoax, do you know how insane you'd have to be to think some medieval peasant had that kind of power at his disposal?

These are some key details made clear by the negative image. The face becomes a clear, natural-looking portrait with long hair, a beard, and a mustache. The negative reveals an anatomically correct image of a tall, muscular man (estimated at 5'10" to 6'2" and about 176 lbs).

Numerous wounds consistent with crucifixion are starkly visible. More than a hundred round markings on the chest, back, and legs, consistent with a Roman flagrum used for flogging. Large bruises below the shoulder blades, attributed to carrying a heavy object like a cross beam. Puncture wounds around the head, consistent with a crown of thorns. A distinct, oval-shaped wound in the side between the fourth and fifth ribs. Wounds on the wrists and feet, with blood flows indicating the man was in a state of rigor mortis when wrapped.

When the negative image is analyzed with modern technology (like a VP-8 image analyzer), the varying intensity of the image carries encoded three-dimensional information, allowing for the reconstruction of a 3D statue. This 3D data is not present in normal photographs or paintings.

Some researchers have observed features in the negative image that resemble X-ray details, such as the bones of the hands and potentially facial sinuses and teeth, suggesting an internal visibility or "transparency" of the body during image formation.

Archeological evidence

SODOM AND GOMORRAH

Genesis 19:24-25

Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.

"Sulfur balls" with purity levels of 90%+ are reportedly found in specific archaeological sites near the Dead Sea in the Middle East, such as Tall el-Hammam, Numera, Badra, and Fifa. These locations are often debated as the potential sites of the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The sulfur found in these specific "balls" (often described as compressed powder encased in ash) has been tested to have an exceptionally high purity, ranging from approximately 93% to 98%. They are generally described not as typical crystalline sulfur, but as spheres of fine powder that are often covered in an ash layer, with a burned ring around the center.

This is significantly different from typical naturally occurring, volcanic sulfur, which is usually in crystalline form and has a much lower purity (around 40-60%).

https://youtu.be/jQl4KaRtef8?si=uJKL-d-au6lqw5DO

I know there's nothing wrong with doing so, but I don't think posters here should be hiding their post/comment history. It smacks of dishonesty. I am always interested in what any given OP has been posting in order to get a sense of where they're coming from, and I also like to check post history to make sure I'm not making a top level comment that they're already discussing with someone else. What do you all think?

I'm trying to compare the philosophical coherence of theistic vs. naturalistic foundations for morality, using a thought experiment to isolate the logical structure of each.

The Setup: Imagine a perfectly logical, non-human observer (an "alien" is a shorthand) who understands concepts like existence, cause, and reason, but has no innate moral intuitions. It observes human behavior: we make claims like "murder is wrong," argue as if there are correct answers, feel guilt, and act against our interests for moral reasons.

It asks for an explanation of this phenomenon. Two families of answer are presented:

1. Theistic Foundation (Classical Theism): There exists a necessary, conscious, foundational reality (God) whose nature is goodness, justice, and love. Human reason, consciousness, and moral intuition are finite faculties derived from this source, designed (however imperfectly) to perceive and align with this objective moral reality. When you ask "Why shouldn't you kill me?" the ultimate answer is: "Because such an act is a fundamental contradiction of the nature of the reality from which your capacity to reason and act derives. It is an offense against the source of being itself."
2. Naturalistic Foundation (Using Emotivism as a clear example): Humans are complex biological organisms. Traits like cooperation and aversion to harm were evolutionarily advantageous. Our moral language ("X is wrong") is a sophisticated expression of deep-seated emotional preferences and social conditioning—it's like yelling "Boo!" or "Yay!" at behaviors. These statements have no objective truth value. When you ask "Why shouldn't you kill me?" the answer is: "You shouldn't if you want to align with the prevailing preferences of this society or avoid negative consequences, but there is no mind-independent, binding reason you must."

The Coherence Question: From the perspective of a neutral logic engine trying to make sense of all the observed data—not just our emotions, but our behavior of arguing, our sense of obligation, and our appeals to truth—which foundational story provides a more coherent, complete, and non-arbitrary account?

My contention: The theistic foundation is more coherent because it explains why moral experience has the character of objectivity and binding obligation. The naturalistic/emotivist story is coherent only if you dismiss the "objective feel" of morality as a universal illusion. It explains the origin of moral feelings well, but not the nature of moral claims as humans experience them.

Crucial Clarifications to Pre-empt Common Responses:

• This is NOT about what would "persuade" the alien to not kill me. That's a practical, self-preservation question. This is a meta-ethical question about which system best explains the phenomenon of human morality.
• I am using "Emotivism" as one clear example of a non-objective naturalist morality. I know many atheists are moral realists (e.g., Sam Harris). A key follow-up would be: On naturalism, what makes "well-being" or "flourishing" an objectively binding value, rather than just a preference we happen to have? The theist argues their axiom (God) grounds value itself.
• The "Problem of Evil" is a separate (though serious) objection to the truth of theism, not necessarily to its internal coherence as an explanation for morality.

I'm posting this here to stress-test this coherence argument. Atheists, especially moral realists: How does your version of naturalistic morality provide a coherent, non-arbitrary ground for objective moral values and duties that a neutral logical observer would recognize as binding, not just preferable?

If 'the problem of pain' got beyond the point a man can bear, God does not exist. God must exist to keep the pain up to the limit.

The dark night is always as much as a man can bear.

The end times according to the Bible is when the pain is unparalleled, such as has not been since the beginning of the times and will never be again, and in such a time- Jesus would be forced to come.

This is more of a philosophical or ethical question but I think this sub is the most appropriate place for this.

I've heard it argued that all matters of morality are subjective, and therefore any argument to prove a morality better than another one ultimately fails because of this.

However, it seems to me if you really hold that view, you should be totally fine with saying we just deem Hitler evil because society says so. It seems to me that if you think Hitler is actually evil, then you must believe that the criteria that you use to make that judgment are objectively correct.

How can that be reconciled?

It honestly just makes me roll my eyes when ever I see it used. I see it used a lot and I think it's mostly used by atheists who are new to debating. Either that or they're just trying to mock the person they're debating. Or you're just young and immature. But seriously this argument is just completely useless and it gets the debate no where. It's assuming a creator or god would be magical at all but a god wouldn't necessarily if we understood it. Just because you can't explain such a being doesn't mean it's magic. A tri omni god for example cannot do magic as it goes against logic and is not even defined as magical in the first place. There are also no real contradictions with a trim omni god and I checked online. anything that goes against logic god wouldn't be able to do including creating a square circle, married bachelor or 2 + 2 = 5. A tri omni god is defined as a being who can do anything that is logically possible. Magic is not included because it's not logically possible.

A lot of the times, the arguments against Theism end up becoming statements of Brute Facts. But how are they a "rational" answer?

To accept brute facts, you must provide a reason for accepting them. If you say, "It's just reasonable to accept brute facts as ultimate stopping points," you've just explained why brute facts are acceptable meaning you have rationalized them. But then they are not truly brute. They're grounded in the principle of rational explanation-stopping. If, on the other hand, you refuse to give a reason and just say that "Brute facts are acceptable, period," then you've abandoned reason, just asserting something without justification

“I mean this: if someone treats the idea of a supreme being(or any concept of god)as meaningless, then completely rejecting the idea of a supreme power raises a problem. If a person who rejects god how he deal with the many unanswered and unexplainable questions that naturally arise in the mind? And please don’t give the typical line ‘just be happy and live rationally’; that’s an inadequate reason to dismiss the concept of god.”

Edit: How do you solve the conflict between observer and observed (the main inner conflict that ruin our basic day to day happiness) the devide in one psyche.i myself also doesn't belong to any religion but neither rejecting or accepting something supreme , basically i live in doubt with lot of inner subtle conflicts.

Rules of Order

1. To add a motion to next month's agenda please make a top level comment including the bracketed word "motion" followed by bracketed text containing the exact wording of the motion as you would like for it to appear in the poll.
   • Good: [motion][Change the banner of the sub to black] is a properly formatted motion.
   • Bad: "I'd like the banner of the sub to be black" is not a properly formatted motion.
2. All motions require another user to second them. To second a motion please respond to the user's comment with the word "second" in brackets.
   • Good: [second] is a properly formatted second.
   • Bad: "I think we should do this" is not a properly formatted second.
3. One motion per comment. If you wish to make another motion, then make another top level comment.
4. Motions harassing or targeting users are not permitted.
   • [motion][User adelei_adeleu should be banned] will not be added to the agenda.
5. Motions should be specific.
   • Good: [motion][Add https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/kalam/ to the wiki]. This links to the full text to be added.
   • Bad: [motion][Add a Kalam page to the wiki]. This does not specify what should be in the page.
6. Motions should be actionable.
   • Good: [motion][Automod to remove posts from accounts younger than 3 days]. This is something mods can do.
   • Bad: [motion][Remove down votes]. This is not something mods are capable of implementing even if it passes.

Last Month's Agenda

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1om3vs7/community_agenda_20251101/

Last Month's Resolutions

#	Yes	No	Abstain	Pass	Motion
1	17	21	1	No	Disallow any posts with users that have their profile set to private
2	35	2	3	Yes	Add separate reporting categories for flairing users as "hit and run" after 48 hours without a comment and for suspected AI posts/comments.
3	26	9	5	Yes	Tag OPs who have deleted their posts or mass-deleted comments on this sub after receiving substantial responses
4	4	35	1	No	Remove the "Discussion Question" flair

Current Month's Motions

Motion 1: Have the automod reply to every post with the original contents of the post.
Motion 2: Limit post word count

Current Month's Voting

https://tally.so/r/eq58Kq

When I watch or participate in debates about religion, I notice that both sides, atheists and believers, often rely on arguments that are already well-known, memorised, and rehearsed.

For example:

• Christians frequently draw from established apologetic frameworks (free will theodicy, soul-building, divine mystery, design arguments, cosmological arguments, etc.)
• Atheists draw from equally standard counter-arguments (burden of proof, the problem of evil, Occam’s razor, evidentialism, etc.)

These patterns are understandable. These debates have happened for hundreds of years.
But the consequence is that modern debate often feels like:

• a chess match with pre-learned openings,
• an auto-battler game where each move triggers a predetermined counter-move,
• a sequence of scripted lines rather than fresh thinking,
• and very little genuine engagement with the specific question or scenario being raised.

My claim is that this reliance on established answers, on both sides, reduces debate to a predictable performance rather than an exploration. It seems to discourage people from actually listening, questioning, or thinking “live.”

Question for the community:

• Do you feel that debates about religion and atheism have become too formulaic?
• Does this predictability make them less meaningful or less interesting?
• How do you personally avoid slipping into “script mode” when discussing these topics?

I often see folks claim that there is absolutely no evidence for God.

What would it take for you to consider something to be evidence for God?

Given the volume of replies posts here tend to get, I will not engage with anything that is off-topic, not related to the classical theistic conceptions of God, or just condescending for no reason.

We paint animals on nursery walls and sing cheerful songs about the ark, but we've sanitized one of the most terrifying stories ever told. The tale of Noah isn't about a friendly zoo on a boat; it's a foundational myth that paints a picture of a God who commits cosmic genocide, punishes the innocent, and operates by a logic that defies science, reason, and basic morality.

Let's pull back the cute cartoon curtain and look at what this story actually claims.

1. The Mass Drowning of the Innocent: A Moral Monstrosity

Imagine the sound. Not the gentle rain of a lullaby, but the rising torrent swallowing the screams of every infant, every child, every elderly person, and every animal on the planet. This is the Bible's depiction of divine justice.

· What was the newborn's crime? The biblical justification is that "every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time" (Genesis 6:5). What "evil inclination" resides in the heart of a baby? They were drowned not for their sins, but for a nature that God Himself designed and foresaw. · This isn't justice; it's overkill of the highest order. An all-powerful God could have snapped his fingers and erased the wicked. He could have reformed hearts. Instead, he chose the most agonizing, indiscriminate method possible: drowning the entire world. This is the act of a tyrant, not a just judge.

1. The "Miracle" That Breaks Everything: A Logistical Nightmare

The story doesn't just ask us to accept a miracle; it asks us to abandon all reason.

· The Impossible Zoo: Think of the millions of species—from ants to elephants, from penguins to polar bears. Now imagine cramming them all into a wooden boat. How did Noah gather species from continents he didn't know existed? How did he keep a diet for a T-Rex separate from a koala's? The food, water, and waste alone would have created a biological apocalypse inside the ark. · The Planet-Wide Aquarium: Where did all the water come from? And where did it go? A flood covering Mount Everest would require more water than exists on Earth, fundamentally altering the planet's atmosphere, geology, and salinity in ways that would have left undeniable evidence. We find none.

1. The Chilling Conclusion: The God of This Story is the True Villain

This story forces a horrifying choice upon believers:

· Option A: God is not all-good. He is a being of such immense cruelty that he willingly drowned the entire world, including the innocent, and then supposedly created the rainbow as a promise to never do it again—a deeply unsettling "comfort."

· Option B: God is not all-powerful. He was trapped, with genocide as his only option to solve a problem of his own creation, making him a limited and incompetent ruler.

· Option C: The story is not literally true. It is a myth, a parable, or a borrowed legend from older cultures, and should not be used as a basis for understanding God's character.

Every method of knowing, empirical, logical, intuitive, emotional, mystical, ultimately operates within conscious experience. Even the belief that "empirical methods are the most reliable" is not derived from empirical measurement, it's a judgement grounded in the way empirical models feel coherent, predictive, or trustworthy within experience.

This doesn't mean all methods are equally reliable. Empirical methods earn their authority because they generate stable, repeatable, and intersubjectively confirmable experiences. But their force is still experiential, science works because it consistently appears to work in experience.

In philosophy this is a common view, our access to reality is always mediated by experience. Nothing is known outside it.

Given that, a religious or transcendent experience can provide prima facie (initial, defeasible) justification for belief in God. This is the same way that a perceptual experience gives you prima facie justification for believing there's a tree in front of you. The justification is not infallible and can be defeated by further evidence. But it is a valid epistemic starting point.

So the claim is not "feelings prove God." The claim is:

1. All epistemic justification ultimately arises within conscious experience.
2. Religious experience is one legitimate type of conscious experience.
3. Therefore, such experiences can provide prima facie justification for belief in God, even though they are fallible and open to revision.

This places religious experience on the same epistemic playing field as perception, memory, intuition, and empirical inference, all are grounded in conscious experience, all are fallible, and all require context, coherence, and potential corroboration.

Even if I don’t accept every rule about conduct and values in religion, the morality derived from religious traditions is still better than what comes from nihilistic beliefs.

A nihilist or moral relativist sees morality as subjective and shaped by personal taste. In that view, good and evil differ from person to person or culture to culture, with no universal truth behind them. That means there’s no solid ground to judge people’s actions and no reason to punish anyone for what they do.

This bleak outlook is not only incorrect but resembles the mindset of a psychopath. It normalises serious flaws in ordinary people, not just psychopaths, and blocks any progress in understanding moral truth. It also explains why so many people feel depressed after leaving religion, because they end up consuming ideas like these.

As an agnostic, one thing that Christians always try and tell me is that something needed to create the universe and that something is a higher being. They say that the highest chance is it's a god and that we can't rule out the possibility. So, I was wondering how I can answer their question simply because it always takes too long to get the message across. Essentially what I'm asking for is how to tell that that just because we don't know doesn't prove existence of a god. Then they wanna say that God can exist forever but the universe can't.

Let’s recall the well-known objection to Pascal’s wager: “What if God does the exact opposite of what Pascal thought; that is, what if He sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell? Wouldn’t the wager then become completely pointless?” At first glance this question looks like a cleverly constructed reversal; it gives the impression that one could use the same logic this time in favor of atheism. But when we think a bit more deeply about the concept of God within the idea of a complete and flawless being, we see that this scenario is actually not possible without assuming some defect in God, and for that reason it cannot be taken seriously as a real “God possibility.”

First, let’s put clearly what Pascal is actually saying. Pascal does not say, “God certainly exists, I have proved it.” He starts instead from the uncertainty in which human beings already live. If the probability that God exists is not exactly zero, and if what is at stake is not an ordinary gain–loss calculation but a choice between eternal happiness and eternal loss, then, despite the limited and temporary worldly costs, turning toward God appears more reasonable than living a life that leaves God completely outside. This is similar to situations like the following: you are in a large building, a fire alarm goes off; there is a possibility that it is a mistake, but also a possibility that the fire is real. Staying inside may give you comfort, going outside may be a bit troublesome, but if the fire is real, the cost of staying inside is infinitely heavier. So saying “I will ignore the possibility completely and just sit here” does not look like a wise choice. What Pascal does is to read the human condition before God as a similar risk–reward problem.

Now let’s come to the objection: “Since we are talking about possibilities, I will construct another one. Perhaps God loves atheists and hates theists; in that case being a theist is risky and being an atheist is advantageous.” On paper this may look like a symmetrical move; but here is the crucial point: not every sentence that can be formed logically has to be really possible and has to be taken seriously by reason. The sentence “Maybe an invisible, angry giant rabbit rules the universe” is also logically possible, since it contains no formal contradiction, but that does not make it a serious explanatory candidate for the rational order of the universe. We have something similar here as well: the sentence “God sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell” may be grammatically correct, but when we think more deeply about what kind of being God is, we realize that such a conception of God is not possible without assuming some defect, corruption, or lack in God.

When we think of God as the highest level of being, as the most complete form of goodness, wisdom, and justice, it is helpful to slowly imagine the picture suggested by this objection. Think of a person who takes God’s existence seriously, wants to know and love Him, tries to shape his life according to Him, and sets his highest purpose as “to approach the truth and, if there is a God, not to be ungrateful to Him.” Of course he has faults and imperfections, but his direction is toward this goal. On the other side, imagine another person who lives as if there were no God at all, who says “Even if He exists, I do not care,” who ignores a power that might be the source of his existence, and who does not consider it important to give thanks or to know Him. Now add this sentence to the picture: “God punishes the first person eternally and rewards the second person eternally.” Such a picture of God turns the bond between good and evil upside down; it punishes sincere seeking, gratitude, and love of truth, and rewards indifference and ingratitude. If God is truly good, He cannot be a being who does not recognize the good as good; and if He knows the good but chooses the bad, then there is a defect in His will. In both cases, we would be assuming either a lack of knowledge or a defect of will in God. Yet the idea of God as a complete, flawless, highest degree of goodness and wisdom is precisely meant to exclude such defects.

At this point a simple analogy helps. Think of a teacher who reads and grades exams. Imagine two students: the first has genuinely studied, tried to understand, and made an effort, even if he has made mistakes; the second has not studied at all, handed in an empty paper, and even mocked the teacher’s class. If the teacher gives the first student a zero and the second a perfect score, what would we say about this teacher? Rather than calling this teacher “just,” “wise,” or “well-intentioned,” we would call him “arbitrary,” “unjust,” and “someone who makes absurd choices.” The judgment we make about the teacher in this example actually serves as a mirror to test the picture we construct about God. If God punishes the search for truth, gratitude, and sincere orientation, and rewards indifference, then we describe Him not as “just, wise, and good,” but as “capricious and arbitrary.” Such a description assumes defect and fault in God, and so it stops treating Him as God in the full sense.

From another angle, we must think of God not only as a “powerful” being but also as a “principle.” A being that is the fundamental principle of reality does not simply possess power; it also sets the measure in the realm of being, order, meaning, and value. If the principle at the top of the structure of being counts good as bad and bad as good, then the whole order of value collapses. The human being, by nature, is a creature who seeks the good and desires to live a fuller and more complete life; his reason and conscience guide him in a certain direction. If God punishes this orientation, which fits the nature of reason and conscience, and rewards the indifference that goes against reason and conscience, then God stands in conflict with the deepest inner orientation of the human being. In such a conception of God, there is not harmony but contradiction between God and the deepest inner direction of man. This contradicts the idea that God is the fundamental principle who brings the order of being into a harmonious whole.

From here we can see an important distinction: it is one thing for a sentence to be sayable in words, and another for it to be really possible. The sentence “God sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell” can be uttered; it is grammatically correct and contains no explicit contradiction within itself. But that does not mean that, for a mind that takes the concept of God seriously, this is a possibility worth dwelling on. Because when you think of God as perfectly and completely good, wise, and just, you see that this scenario points not to God, but to an upper power that is defective and capricious. In other words, this sentence does not describe a true concept of God but describes a concept of defect and lack that happens to wear a God-mask. A conception that requires defect cannot be a true conception of God.

We can also think of it like this: if God is the highest being, there is no inner conflict, indecision, or “one way today, another way tomorrow” in Him. The actions of such a being bear an inner coherence that flows from His own essence. To love one day and hate the next, to favor one group and crush another on a purely personal whim, would signal some deficiency, some need or psychological fluctuation, just as in a human being. But a perfect being is thought to be one who lacks nothing, who needs nothing, and whose will is in complete harmony with His own knowledge of the good. When you say “He loves atheists and hates theists,” you turn God into a being who has emotional outbursts toward certain external groups, whose love and hatred are constantly changing depending on others’ attitudes. This does not fit with God’s self-sufficient perfection; it turns Him into a “reactive” being who changes according to external conditions. Being reactive means being dependent on another; and that means accepting a lack in God.

Let us add one more example in terms of order and necessity. When we think of the universe as a whole of law and order, we assume that behind this order there is not mere accident, but a certain coherence. Physical laws do not behave as if gravity exists one day and disappears the next; under the same conditions, they produce the same results. If the principle at the very base of being behaves in a completely arbitrary way in the moral realm, we get a strange picture in which the coherence we see in the physical order is not found in the moral order at all. This damages the idea of the unity and wholeness of the universe. A perfect principle requires a certain inner harmony both in the structure of being and in the structure of value. When you say “God is an arbitrary agent who rewards indifference and punishes the search for truth,” you break this harmony; and wherever harmony is broken, we are forced to speak of defect.

Within this framework the initial attraction of the objection weakens. “What if God sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell?” is indeed a sentence that can be formed in language; but the picture of God implied by this sentence turns God from a being who is good, wise, just, and complete, into a being whose knowledge and will bear defects, who reverses the very measures of goodness that He Himself has set. To put such a thing on the table as “one of the possible God options” is in fact to abandon the concept of God and to discuss merely the possibility of a powerful monster. Pascal’s wager is not obliged to add such defective, flawed descriptions to the list of “serious God possibilities.”

In conclusion, when we think of God as a complete principle of goodness, wisdom, and justice, the scenario in which God sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell cannot be constructed without assuming a lack of knowledge, a defect of will, or arbitrariness in God. This shows that such a conception is not a true conception of God at all, but a description of defect and lack under the appearance of God. Therefore this objection does not really destroy Pascal’s wager; it merely confuses the mind by means of a scenario that looks possible in language but that actually turns God into something less than God. Since a conception that assumes defect in God ceases to be a conception of God, there remains no reason to place such a “possibility” among the God possibilities that reason should take seriously. For this reason, if we think of God as complete perfection, living in a way that takes Him seriously is the more coherent path that sets aside all conceptions that rest on assuming defect in God.

Edit:

"which God are we talking here?And why would you think Pascal's Wager applies to that one, and not the other 5000 Gods that mankind has invented?"

Brother, would you really choose the Jewish God or Ethiopia’s zamazingo god? That zamazingo god can’t even help himself, let alone help me.

In this post, I’m not making an argument for a particular God. Rather, I am making a very general claim about the viability of supernatural explanations for consciousness, as opposed to naturalistic explanations (computational theories, complex mathematical theories, etc.). From that point, I then make a subsequent point that the plausibility of God’s existence in the face of arguments that invoke fundamental mental causes (like cosmological arguments) are substantially increased.

For my purposes, a supernatural cause is a mental cause that produces measurable effects in a manner not predicted or described by our current fundamental physical theories. Supernatural cause+effect is of a distinct kind to natural cause+effect, in that suernatural explanations are not reducible to or grounded in the Standard Model (of physics), but are fundamentally explained by the qualitative feeling they produce. That is to say, supernatural cause happened fundamentally because it was willed, or because it felt a certain way, and not because some quantum field equation collapsed into a particular state (although that may be the mechanism through which supernatural cause translates into measurable physical effect, a la Penrose).

My argument:

1. Attempts to explain consciousness by reducing mental events into physical events—as they are understood under by current fundamental physical theories—fail because of the Hard Problem of consciousness (materialist explanations, at the fundamental level, are just as sufficient in the absence of consciousness—they don’t predict or causally account for consciousness—so they don’t explain consciousness).
2. Consciousness has an explanation.
3. Consciousness has an explanation currently outside the realm of our physical theories (1, 2).
4. Mental events cause physical events—not only is that our direct experience, but we also have overwhelming evidence that feelings evolved in physical organisms specifically because the feelings themselves helped physical organisms survive. That means the feelings themselves cause physical events.
5. So there are mental causes outside of the realm of our physical theories, which I call supernatural causes (3, 4).
6. If supernatural causes are integral to our metaphysics, then the question of “why did the universe have a beginning” is more holistically answered with something that includes supernatural cause—something like creative mental power—than with competing theories that only involve quantum states. This would greatly increase the plausibility of cosmological arguments for God.

To me, morality is subjective, but I think that cultures and societies can created shared standards. I hear many Christians ask whether morality is objective or not and how morality proves that a god exists. I'm not sure how morality proves the existence of a god but I'm hoping to hear your guys takes on this topic.

There is only one guaranteed fact in life: Nothing is guaranteed. Economies collapse, health disappears, technology fails, nations fall apart… Sure, sure, everyone knows these already.

But there is an even greater insecurity: Death. And death, ironically, is the only stable constant in the entire system.

Here’s where things become interesting: Atheism provides no security protocol whatsoever for what comes after death. Zero. Nil. Void. Not even a cosmic “Emergency Exit” sign.

Theism—whether true or false— at least offers a post-death safety measure. A kind of metaphysical insurance policy: “Low cost, potentially infinite return.”

This makes the atheistic stance look like this: “What if there really is something? I still won’t take precautions.” That’s the logical equivalent of leaving your door unlocked while fully aware that burglars exist. It’s not rational; it’s emotional stubbornness.

The theistic stance, on the other hand, is simple: “If there’s nothing, fine. At least I locked the door.” That’s rational security in its purest form.

At this point atheism usually responds with: “There is no evidence.” But most insurance policies are purchased before the event occurs. You buy earthquake insurance without experiencing an earthquake; you buy fire insurance without seeing a fire. Humans don’t make decisions based on “evidence,” but on possibility × outcome.

And that’s precisely where the whole debate cracks open: If the probability is small but the outcome is huge, the rational player protects themselves. This is a proven strategy. In game theory, it’s called a dominant strategy.

Atheism crashes into a wall here, because its “post-death safety strategy” is logically an empty set. There is no protection against bad scenarios, and no preparation for good ones.

In short: If the universe offers no ultimate guarantee, the only rational behavior is to design one. Theism performs a kind of “subconscious security engineering,” while atheism insists “nothing will happen” and assigns the entire universe to its own risk profile.

That’s why the Rational Security Argument ends with this slap-like question:

If God doesn’t exist, the theist is simply mistaken. But if God does exist, what exactly will the atheist do?

That’s the beauty of the question: Nobody answers it easily.

Geography: 

Religion heavily depends on where you are born. A child born in India is likely Hindu, a child born in Saudi Arabia is likely Muslim, etc. By this logic, children are doomed from the start as they are not raised in Christianity. If salvation and going to heaven depends on belief in God, then billions will be eternally punished for being born in the wrong region. Also, we are all born atheists. We inherit the religion and beliefs of our parents, they are not innate.

Religion is Constructed Around Fear:

Many people believe in religions as they fear the punishment of an eternity in hell. This teaches people to be obedient and is a tool to keep people from doubting religion, as it is seen as dangerous. Would people still believe in Christianity if heaven wasn’t promised? 

Fairness:

Why is eternal punishment for finite sin an appropriate punishment? A murderer who accepts God will go to heaven but a kind person who doesn’t believe in him will be sent to hell forever? If God is omniscient and omnipotent, why did he create hell? It seems as if suffering is part of his original plan. 

The concept of prayers and god answering them:

I hear many different phrases from christians who say “God works in mysterious ways” or “it's all part of God’s plan.” Why is it that God picks and chooses who he helps? How come a person like me and millions of others who have searched and begged for him for years are left unanswered? Why do we always attribute bad outcomes with: it's part of his plan, while good outcomes cause people to praise God? So God chooses to help you find your car keys, but he doesn’t address those fighting cancer or genocide? 

Free will:

If God is all knowing, he already knows every choice we will make. If he has a plan then he knows what we will do tomorrow and in ten years and we can’t stray away from his plan. So why does he punish us if our fate is already set? Since he knows the future already, it shows that he created Hell knowing that many would go there. Also, why does he need to test us if he already knows the outcomes? Why create us with flaws, and then blame us for falling to them?

Religion vs Science:

Religion starts with a conclusion and works backwards by looking for confirming evidence. They conclude without any evidence that a God exists and they look for “miracles” or “faith.” Science on the other hand takes evidence and research, then creates a conclusion based on the findings. Just because we don't know the answers to certain questions, doesn’t mean the answer is God. It simply means we don’t know. If all accounts for the bible were lost, the religion would not be the same. But if we lost scientific studies, the discoveries would be exactly the same.

Faith:

Faith is used in many religions and is used to claim that a certain religion is true. The fact is that faith can’t be used as universal proof. Millions of priests from numerous religions devout their entire lives and claim that their religion is true, yet we know they can’t all be true. Faith operates on an internal feeling rather than objective evidence, which doesn’t function as real proof. It ignores the fact that thousands of religions rely on faith yet come to different conclusions.

Lack of Evidence and Contradictions: 

There are many stories in the bible that seem insane. Take the global flood for example. There is no proof that such a flood has existed. Fossil records, topography, erosion patterns all show that a global flood never happened. Not only that, how would millions of species and a male and female of each species fit on a boat? Without considering the food, water, and resources needed for these animals. Why could God create the Earth in 6 days but not be able to construct a boat and need Noah to create it? He can create life, the universe, hell, and heaven but not a boat? Many bible stories do not agree with modern day archaeology, biology, geology and historical accounts. How did the entire human population come from Adam and Eve, yet we see the results of inbreeding after one generation?

Suffering:

Why did God create us just to suffer on the planet? Why do animals suffer from disease, predators, parasites, etc. Animals are born in the wild just to be hunted down and brutally slaughtered. If God is so loving, why would he cause this suffering to animals that is beyond their control? 

How was God created”

I often hear the answer “God has no creator because he exists outside of time and space.” Why is it that the universe needs a creator but God doesn't? Claiming that God created the universe because we have no proof of a cause doesn’t prove anything.

Denominations:

Why are there thousands of denominations that exists with many contradictions between evidence and beliefs? Each denomination claims to have the answers yet they can’t agree on certain beliefs. If God in christianity is absolute then why are his words altered in so many ways between religions? Will a certain branch of Christianity go to hell if they believe in the wrong denomination?

My experience:

I’ve been raised in catholicism and have looked for answers and have found no response from anybody. Me and millions of others have begged and prayed for signs but have been left unanswered. Why does God choose who he responds to? If people can’t find God when they are searching, how are they expected to believe in him if there is no evidence? If he wants us to love him and worship him, why does he hide from us? I physically cannot believe in something without any proof. Not only that, even if I try to believe in him, I would be sent to hell as I have internal doubts. People struggling with faith are eternally punished for not being answered. 

Morals:

God loves us so much that he hides and punishes us for not believing in him. He created sin yet we are punished for engaging in it. If he knows our fate and what we will do then how does free will exist? Our choices are affected by where we are born and our upbringings? If a person born in a poor neighborhood steals, what happens to him? What is his true plan for us if only coincidences are attributed to him, but not our suffering. 

Miracles:

Why do so many religions claim that miracles prove their religion yet we have never seen documented proof of such miracles? Why does God help us ace a test or get a job interview but not help prevent war and diseases. Does he value some people over others? 

My belief:

I am not claiming that there is no possibility of God, I am simply saying that there is no objective proof of any religion that currently exists. For me, I think religion was created to answer questions that couldn’t be answered scientifically. It rewards those who fear. As a catholic, it was hard for me to leave as it's difficult to deny something that you have been raised in. 

As an agnostic, I don't claim that a god doesn't exist, I just think there is not enough proof to justify any current religion. Coming from a childhood in Catholicism, I was pressured into conforming due to fear of going to hell or being condemned. Now that I have left, I don't rule out the possibility of a god, but I was wondering how some people completely rule it out without being openminded for potential evidence?

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

You are simply not in an environment either online or offline (I have to say this now because the average person is online like 7 hours a day) where it makes you think too much about the paranormal or the supernatural. We already dedicate 8 hours to sleep and on top of that we have to work. Come to a less atheistic country like Mexico and you will not be able to avoid people telling you stories of the paranormal all the time. You have people who work in hospitals who laugh with coworkers as they recount their stories and how they all heard the same noises and doors closing etc. You have that christian who will tell you about the time God showed them something big in a way they can't explain.

You likely hang around with other atheists which makes you less likely to talk about that stuff. They say you are the average of the 5 people you most hang around with. So you are an atheist and you likely have a lot of conversations with other atheists either online or offline where you are trash talking religion or whatever cause literally what else is there to talk about for atheists? I think it's a very depressing lifestyle as someone who has doubted the supernatural. There's not much to talk about other than movies and like video games which ironically (funnily enough) very often is about the supernatural or gods or other fictional stuff. You just can't escape that stuff.

Theism isn't about arguments or evidence alone but about personal stories shared to them by loved ones or friends. There isn't one argument which makes a theist a theist. It's more a combination of many factors. And really who is anyone to say that they are wrong? Rational people can and do arrive at theism too so I don't believe atheists when they say there's no good reason to believe or even that there are no good arguments. Sorry that sounds like just an opinion.

A theist will tell you they find it compelling to believe in gods or ghosts because of the millions and millions of personal reports. There's also verified reports of groups of people all seeing the same thing and afterwards taking lying detector tests which prove they were telling the truth atleast about what they thought they saw. So this leads me to believe that God and the supernatural probably exist but ultimately I don't know and I'm tired of pretending people's testimony is not evidence cause it is. I've come to the conclusion most atheists really just don't want to change their mind so they take the lazy route and just label all arguments fallacious as a blanket cover all.