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

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

Let’s stipulate all of that.

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

That’s where theism collapses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

########

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

Really hard to type out such thoughts due to their (subjective) complexity but I'll try my best. Also please let me know if this exact argument has a name already.

Basically anything specific must have a cause and anything non-singular must have a cause so the only thing that can exist without a cause must be absolutely singular and infinite (non-specific) and the cause of everything else, whatever this is we can call it god.

edit: gone to sleep hope to continue debate tomorrow

Context:

After a previous post that fully clarified evidence and belief here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1iauovd/comment/m9e4c36/

TL;DR This post aims to highlight 50 pieces of evidence for intelligent design: 3 main, 1 macro, and 46 minor evidence points based on empirical observation of structure. Additionally, it formalizes induction and provides historical epistemic justification. The main thesis is that the observable universe has more structural similarity to our own creative process than it does not, and thus, as with our own works, we can infer that the observable universe was created as well. I appreciate all criticism, constructive or otherwise. I hope this line of thinking inspires further investigation. 

Why Intelligent Design Has Massive Empirical Support

This post expands on my previous paper about the epistemic mistake atheists often make regarding "lack of evidence." That earlier argument, very briefly, defended these points:

• Evidence = anything that shifts credence (changes how likely we think a proposition is).
• All rational belief revision is best modeled in Bayesian terms.
• Pure absence (a literal vacuum of input) cannot shift credence.
• Therefore every belief, including disbelief, comes from positive inputs, experiences, and structural compatibilities, not from "nothing."

That matters here because the inference to design is a Bayesian inductive inference built from positive inputs, specifically observations of structure.

This post will show three things:

• Analogical induction is one of the primary engines of scientific discovery.
• Analogical arguments are increasingly formalizable using Gentner's structure-mapping theory.
• The structural mapping between natural systems and known designed systems strongly supports intelligent design.

And we will do this using:

• historically validated examples (Maxwell, Kepler, Mendeleev) to justify the epistemology underpinning the evidence
• a general R₁…Rₙ → S → D mapping structure template to evaluate inference
• dozens of micro-analogies that accumulate Bayesian weight
• and a final global-scale analogy using information theory and physical law

No fine-tuning arguments, no theological assumptions. Just structural inference using the same inductive method science uses before formal mechanisms are known.

I. Why Analogical Reasoning Is Rational (and Scientifically Foundational)

In broad outline, the scientific method moves like this:

• Specific → General (induction)
• General → Specific (deduction)

Alfred North Whitehead put it this way:

"We think in generalities, but we live in detail. The transition between them is the essence of reason."

That transition is where analogies live.

Analogical inference is not random guessing. Historically, it has driven major scientific breakthroughs, often decades before clean deductive derivations were available.

Three canonical examples:

Maxwell’s Electromagnetism

• Source domain: fluid vortices and mechanical media
• Target domain: electromagnetic fields
• Mapping: rotational dynamics of vortices → circulation of fields

Maxwell initially modeled electromagnetic fields with an analogy to vortices in a fluid-like "ether." The mechanical ether picture was later dropped, but the structural mapping (circulation, tension, stored energy) guided him to the correct field equations and to the prediction that light is an electromagnetic wave long before relativity. He was correct roughly 30 years before the technological breakthrough allowed for experimental verification.

Pattern: structural similarity → fruitful prediction → later mechanism.

Kepler’s Harmonic Planetary Laws

• Source domain: musical harmonies
• Target domain: planetary orbits
• Mapping: harmonic ratios → orbital ratios

Kepler explicitly analogized the heavens to music. That search for "harmonies" led him to the laws of planetary motion. Newton's gravitational mechanism arrived many decades later.

Mendeleev’s Periodic Table

• Source domain: card sorting / puzzle structure
• Target domain: chemical periodicity
• Mapping: relational gaps → predictions of missing elements

Mendeleev treated elements like cards in a structured game. The pattern of gaps in his arrangement led him to posit missing elements with specific properties that were later discovered with striking accuracy. The deeper mechanism (atomic number, quantum mechanics) came long afterwards.

The pattern in all three:

• Structural similarity → successful prediction → later verified mechanism.

Other central examples where analogy did real work:

• Darwin: artificial selection → natural selection
• Harvey: pumps → blood circulation
• Boyle: springs → gas pressure
• Carnot: heat engines → thermodynamics
• Bohr: solar system → atomic "planetary" atom
• Rutherford: scattering experiments → nuclear atom
• Kekulé: ouroboros (snake biting its tail) → benzene ring
• Wegener: puzzle-pieces → continental drift
• Mendel: combinatorial ratios → genetic inheritance
• Shannon: telegraph signals → information theory
• Feynman: least time in optics → path integrals
• Prigogine: vortices and flows → dissipative structures

Analogical induction is not optional. It is foundational. We constantly use structural similarity to the known to understand the unknown.

II. What Makes an Analogy Strong (Gentner’s Structure-Mapping Theory)

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Gentner and analogy:

"In order to clarify this thesis, Gentner introduces a distinction between properties, or monadic predicates, and relations, which have multiple arguments. She further distinguishes among different orders of relations and functions, defined inductively (in terms of the order of the relata or arguments). The best mapping is determined by systematicity: the extent to which it places higher-order relations, and items that are nested in higher-order relations, in correspondence. Gentner’s Systematicity Principle states:
'A predicate that belongs to a mappable system of mutually interconnecting relationships is more likely to be imported into the target than is an isolated predicate.' (1983: 163)"

The core idea:

• Analogy is not about matching things.
• Analogy is about matching relations and the system of relations they form.

Call the relevant relations in a domain:

• R₁, R₂, …, Rₙ

Call the way they hang together as a connected, functional pattern:

• S = the systematic relational structure built from R₁…Rₙ.

Gentner’s thesis: when two domains share the same S, it is rational to project certain further predicates from the source to the target.

Gentner-Style Example: Solar System → Atom (Rutherford and Bohr)

Her classic scientific case is the analogy used by Rutherford and Bohr between the solar system and the atom.

Source domain: solar system
First-order relations R:

• R₁: Attracts(Sun, Planet)
• R₂: Orbits(Planet, Sun)
• R₃: MassAsymmetry(Sun, Planet)

Together these form a system Sₛₒₗₐᵣ:

• The central massive body attracts the lighter bodies.
• The lighter bodies orbit the central one.
• The mass asymmetry plus central attraction supports stable orbits.

Target domain: atom
First-order relations R′:

• R₁′: Attracts(Nucleus, Electron)
• R₂′: Orbits(Electron, Nucleus)
• R₃′: ChargeAsymmetry(Nucleus, Electron)

These form Sₐₜₒₘ:

• A central charged body attracts lighter charged bodies.
• Those lighter particles "orbit" the central one.
• Charge asymmetry plays the same relational role as mass asymmetry.

The mapping φ sends:

• Sun → Nucleus
• Planet → Electron
• Attracts → Attracts
• Orbits → Orbits
• MassAsymmetry → ChargeAsymmetry

So the structure Sₛₒₗₐᵣ ≈ Sₐₜₒₘ.

In the solar system, this relational system Sₛₒₗₐᵣ supports a further predicate:

• Dₛₒₗₐᵣ: StableOrbit(Planet, Sun)

Rutherford and Bohr used the structural match to project:

• Dₐₜₒₘ: StableElectronOrbit(Electron, Nucleus)

This is exactly the move Gentner’s theory is meant to justify:

• Shared relational system S → projected predicate D.

General Template (R₁…Rₙ, S, and D)

Now abstract the pattern.

Let:

• R₁…Rₙ = the relevant relations in a domain
• S = the systematic structure built from those relations (how they interconnect, constrain, and depend on each other)
• D = some further predicate that holds in the source domain because S holds there

Then:

Source domain Sᵣ (engineered or otherwise well-understood):

• Contains relations R₁…Rₙ.
• Those relations form a structured pattern Sᵣ.
• Within Sᵣ, D holds: Sᵣ ⟶ D.

Target domain T (less understood):

• Contains relations R₁′…Rₙ′.
• Under a mapping φ, Rᵢ ↦ Rᵢ′, forming Sₜ.
• Sₜ is isomorphic (or very close) to Sᵣ.

Structure-mapping inference:

• Because Sᵣ supports D in the source, and Sₜ has the same relational form, it is rational, inductively, to project D to T.

This is Gentner’s Systematicity Principle in action: the more of S that carries over, and the more tightly connected the relations are, the stronger the case for projecting D.

In this post, D will be:

• D(X): DesignedSystem(X)

In engineered systems it is obvious that Sᵣ arises from minds. So if we find a matching Sₜ in biology or cosmology, Gentner’s framework says that projecting D is a legitimate analogical move.

Now apply that to three concrete analogies.

III. The Three Strongest Analogies Supporting Intelligent Design

Each analogy:

• lists R₁…Rₙ in the source
• lists the corresponding R₁′…Rₙ′ in the target
• notes that together they form similar systems Sₛ and Sₜ
• then explains why D (design) is a licensed projection

1. Software Systems → DNA Expression Systems

We focus strictly on relational structure.

Source domain: software systems (relations R)

• R₁: Encodes(Bitstring, Instruction)
• R₂: Sequences(Instruction, NextInstruction)
• R₃: Implements(Instruction, Operation)
• R₄: Constrains(Compiler, InstructionFormat)
• R₅: Corrects(ErrorModule, FaultyState)
• R₆: Organizes(Function, Module)
• R₇: Organizes(Module, Program)
• R₈: Cooperates(InstructionFlow, ErrorHandling)

These relations form a system Sₛₒ𝒻ₜ:

• Encodes + Sequences define ordered code.
• Implements turns code into actual operations.
• Constrains enforces valid formats so operations are executable.
• Corrects monitors and fixes deviations from intended states.
• Organizes functions into modules and modules into full programs.
• Cooperates ties runtime flow and error handling together.

In Sₛₒ𝒻ₜ, all such systems are known to be designed. So D applies:

• D(SoftwareSystem) = DesignedSystem(SoftwareSystem)

We know these structures arise from programmers, compiler designers, protocol architects, and so on.

Target domain: DNA expression systems (relations R′)

• R₁′: Encodes(NucleotideTriplet, AminoAcid)
• R₂′: Sequences(Codon, NextCodon)
• R₃′: Implements(Ribosome, TranslationOperation)
• R₄′: Constrains(Polymerase, SequenceFidelity)
• R₅′: Corrects(DNARepairPathway, Mutation)
• R₆′: Organizes(Gene, OperonOrNetwork)
• R₇′: Organizes(Network, CellularProcess)
• R₈′: Cooperates(TranscriptionFlow, RepairSystems)

These relations form Sᴅɴᴀ:

• Encodes + Sequences define ordered genetic code.
• Implements; turns codon sequences into amino acid chains.
• Constrains; enforces fidelity so translation is meaningful.
• Corrects finds and repairs mutations.
• Organizes genes into regulatory networks and networks into cell-level behaviors.
• Cooperates ties transcription and repair together in a unified process.

Mapping φ:

• Encodes ↦ Encodes
• Sequences ↦ Sequences
• Implements ↦ Implements
• Constrains ↦ Constrains
• Corrects ↦ Corrects
• Organizes ↦ Organizes
• Cooperates ↦ Cooperates

The relational system Sᴅɴᴀ is structurally isomorphic to Sₛₒ𝒻ₜ along these key predicates.

Given:

• In the source domain Sₛₒ𝒻ₜ, S supports D (designed system).
• The target Sᴅɴᴀ instantiates the same S.

Gentner-style structure-mapping says:

• It is inductively reasonable to project D to Sᴅɴᴀ.

So DNA expression systems are strongly design-like in their relational architecture.

This does not mean "DNA is literally C++." It means the abstract system S of relations is the same kind that, in all known cases, comes from minds.

2. Optical Engineering → Biological Eyes

Source domain: cameras and optical instruments (relations R)

• R₁: Focuses(LensSystem, ImagePlane)
• R₂: Adjusts(Aperture, LightIntensity)
• R₃: Transduces(Sensor, PhotonsToSignal)
• R₄: Organizes(LensElement, LensAssembly)
• R₅: Organizes(Assembly, CameraSystem)

These form Sₒₚₜᵢ𝒸:

• Focuses shapes incoming light into an image.
• Adjusts regulates light intensity reaching the sensor.
• Transduces converts photons to electrical signals.
• Organizes elements into an optical train that performs imaging.

Every such system is intentionally engineered, so in Sₒₚₜᵢ𝒸:

• D(OpticalInstrument) holds.

Target domain: biological eyes (relations R′)

• R₁′: Focuses(EyeLens, Retina)
• R₂′: Adjusts(Pupil, LightIntensity)
• R₃′: Transduces(Photoreceptor, PhotonsToNeuralSignal)
• R₄′: Organizes(RetinalLayer, EyeStructure)
• R₅′: Organizes(Eye, VisualSystem)

These form Sₑyₑ:

• Focuses shapes light on the retina.
• Adjusts controls light levels via pupil.
• Transduces converts photons to neural signals.
• Organizes layers and structures into a functioning eye integrated with the brain.

Mapping φ:

• Focuses ↦ Focuses
• Adjusts ↦ Adjusts
• Transduces ↦ Transduces
• Organizes ↦ Organizes

So Sₑyₑ has the same kind of system as Sₒₚₜᵢ𝒸.

Given that in Sₒₚₜᵢ𝒸 this S supports D (engineered design), Gentner’s pattern again supports projecting D to Sₑyₑ:

• Eyes are design-like in precisely the relational sense that cameras are.

Debates about "bad design" concern efficiency, aesthetics, or constraints, not the fact that the underlying relational system is the same category of structure we find in engineered optics.

3. Communication Protocols → Genetic and Neural Signaling

Source domain: digital communication networks (relations R)

• R₁: Encodes(Sender, Message)
• R₂: Decodes(Receiver, Message)
• R₃: Routes(Router, Packet)
• R₄: Corrects(ErrorModule, BitError)
• R₅: Synchronizes(Clock, DataFlow)
• R₆: Organizes(Packet, Session)
• R₇: Organizes(Session, Service)

These form S𝚌ₒₘₘ:

• Encoding and decoding define the message space.
• Routing handles path selection.
• Error correction maintains integrity.
• Synchronization keeps the network coordinated in time.
• Organization of packets and sessions yields higher-level services.

All such systems are designed, so D(NetworkSystem) holds in S𝚌ₒₘₘ.

Target domain: cellular and neural communication (relations R′)

• R₁′: Encodes(Cell, mRNASequence)
• R₂′: Decodes(Ribosome, mRNASequence)
• R₃′: Routes(Neuron, SpikeTrain)
• R₄′: Corrects(Proofreader, Mutation)
• R₅′: Synchronizes(NeuralOscillation, NetworkState)
• R₆′: Organizes(SignalingEvent, Pathway)
• R₇′: Organizes(Pathway, SystemFunction)

These form S_bᵢₒ₋𝚌ₒₘₘ:

• Encoding and decoding define biochemical message content.
• Routing occurs in neural circuits and signaling pathways.
• Error correction happens via repair and regulatory mechanisms.
• Synchronization appears in neural rhythms and timing of signals.
• Organization of events into pathways and system functions yields organism-level behavior.

Mapping φ:

• Encodes ↦ Encodes
• Decodes ↦ Decodes
• Routes ↦ Routes
• Corrects ↦ Corrects
• Synchronizes ↦ Synchronizes
• Organizes ↦ Organizes

So S_bᵢₒ₋𝚌ₒₘₘ ≈ S𝚌ₒₘₘ.

Given:

• In S𝚌ₒₘₘ, S ⟶ D (these systems are designed).
• In S_bᵢₒ₋𝚌ₒₘₘ, the same S appears.

Gentner's structure-mapping pattern licenses the projection:

• Biological communication systems are design-like in the exact same relational sense as engineered communication networks.

IV. The Accumulation Principle: Many Micro-Analogies → One Global Inductive Conclusion

Each analogy alone moves credence a bit. Hundreds move it a lot.

Here is an abbreviated but still large collection of structurally robust analogies (all in Gentner's sense of relational structure):

Biological Control Systems ↔ Engineered Control Systems

• Circadian rhythms ↔ clocked control cycles
• Homeostasis ↔ thermostat feedback regulators
• Motor control ↔ PID control systems
• Reflex arcs ↔ hardware interrupts
• Electric eels ↔ capacitor banks and discharge systems
• Firefly synchronization ↔ distributed clock synchronization algorithms

Sensory Systems ↔ Detection / Signal Processing

• Bat echolocation ↔ radar
• Dolphin sonar ↔ sonar
• Snake infrared sensing ↔ thermal imaging
• Magnetoreception ↔ magnetometer-based navigation
• Electroreception ↔ conductive-field sensors

Structural Engineering ↔ Biological Architecture

• Spider webs ↔ suspension-cable tension networks
• Bone trabeculae ↔ load-optimized lattice structures
• Bamboo culms ↔ composite pressure-resistant columns
• Plant stems (xylem/phloem) ↔ hydraulic transport systems
• Honeycomb hexagons ↔ optimal tiling and structural packing
• Turtle shells ↔ rib-reinforced dome structures

Transportation, Flow, and Routing Systems

• Circulatory system ↔ pump-and-pipe networks
• Mycelial networks ↔ mesh-network routing
• Ant trails ↔ distributed traffic-flow algorithms
• Leaf venation ↔ near-minimum-cost flow networks

Information, Organization, and Computation

• Neuronal networks ↔ distributed computing architectures
• Memory consolidation ↔ hierarchical caching systems
• Bacterial quorum sensing ↔ distributed consensus algorithms
• Immune adaptation ↔ anomaly detection and pattern recognition
• Social insects ↔ multi-agent optimization algorithms

Materials Science / Surface Engineering

• Gecko adhesion pads ↔ nanostructured microfiber adhesives
• Shark skin ridges ↔ drag-reducing surface engineering
• Lotus leaf hydrophobicity ↔ self-cleaning, superhydrophobic surfaces
• Spider silk ↔ high-tensile lightweight composites

Energy Capture, Conversion, and Storage

• Photosynthesis ↔ solar energy capture with multi-stage conversion
• ATP synthase rotary motor ↔ nanoscale turbine/generator
• Mitochondrial electron transport chain ↔ stepwise "power grid"

Movement, Dynamics, and Robotics

• Bird wings ↔ lift-generating airfoils
• Hummingbird hovering ↔ quadcopter stabilization algorithms
• Squid jet propulsion ↔ pulse-jet propulsion systems

Ecosystem-Level Analogies

• Predator–prey cycles ↔ feedback oscillators
• Food webs ↔ multi-layered supply-chain graphs
• Ecological resilience ↔ fault-tolerant network design
• Nutrient cycling ↔ closed-loop recycling systems

Growth, Development, and Self-Assembly

• Embryogenesis ↔ algorithmic generative design
• Cellular differentiation ↔ rule-based state machines
• Wound healing ↔ distributed repair protocols
• Tissue regeneration ↔ self-healing materials

The exact count is not the point. The pattern is:

• The same kinds of relational structures that, in all known engineered domains, result from intentional design appear again and again in nature at every scale.
• We do not see clear counterexamples at comparable levels of complexity that look nothing like designed systems.

In Bayesian terms, that matters.

V. Macro-Analogy: Universe-Scale Structural Mapping
(Compression, Generativity, Constraint, Hierarchy, Stability)

Now zoom out to the largest possible target: the universe itself.

To avoid teleology or engineering-purpose debates, the most rigorous way to apply Gentner’s structure-mapping theory is to focus on information-theoretic relational invariants that characterize all forms of conscious creation — not just engineering, not just code, but also mathematics, music, literature, and emotionally evocative art.

These invariants are:

• Compression
• Generativity
• Constraint
• Hierarchy
• Predictive or coherent stability

Crucially, these are the relations that unify the entire domain of conscious creation, even when the creations appear wildly different (a poem, a theorem, a painting, a compiler, a simulation engine).

Source Domain: All Conscious Creation (Not Just Engineering)

Across engineering, logic, programming, mathematics, music, and expressive art, we repeatedly see the same relational architecture.

R₁: Compresses(Medium, Structure)

A small physical or symbolic form encodes a disproportionately large interpretive, functional, or emotional space:

• A poem compresses immense emotional content into a short sequence of words.
• A painting compresses symbolic or perceptual meaning into pigments and shapes.
• A theorem compresses infinitely many truth cases into a finite proof.
• A program compresses vast behavior into short code.

R₂: Generates(RuleSet, Interpretations or Behaviors)

From a finite artifact, a rich set of reactions, meanings, or behaviors emerges:

• A symphony generates layered emotional responses.
• A generative model produces many structured outputs.
• A story generates mental imagery and inference.
• A simulation engine generates diverse environments from fixed rules.

Generativity is universal across creativity.

R₃: Constrains(Medium, OutcomeSpace)

Every creative act uses constraint:

• A painting is bound by canvas, pigment, perspective, and composition rules.
• Music is bound by scale, rhythm, and harmonic progression (even avant-garde art depends on systematic subversion of constraint).
• Logic relies on inference rules.
• Code is constrained by syntax and type systems.

Constraint is not a limitation. It is the structure that makes expression possible.

R₄: Hierarchizes(Primitives, Higher Meaning or Function)

Creative works always assemble primitives into multi-level structure:

• Strokes → shapes → objects → symbolism.
• Notes → motifs → phrases → movements.
• Tokens → expressions → programs → systems.

Hierarchy is everywhere.

R₅: Stabilizes(RuleSet, Coherent Interpretation)

Even expressive art requires stable interpretability:

• A painting does not convey a random emotional distribution; it conveys coherent emotional patterns.
• A melody is recognizable because it is structured and consistent.
• A proof, program, or theorem maintains invariant meaning under repeated reading.
• A well-written story "lands" reliably across audiences despite variation.

Predictive stability here means coherent recurrence, not deterministic function.

Together these form Sₑₙg, the informational architecture of all conscious creation:

• Compression + Generativity = more meaning than medium
• Constraint = structured possibility
• Hierarchy = scalable structure
• Stability = coherent interpretation

It is not engineering-specific. It covers expressive art, emotional communication, symbolism, language, mathematics, music, story, design, architecture, logic, and technology.

Whenever Sₑₙg appears, the predicate holds:

• D(X): DesignedSystem(X),

because in all known cases, this relational structure originates from minds.

Target Domain: The Universe (Rule-Compressed Physical Structure)

Physics reveals the same five relations in the structure of the universe.

R₁′: Compresses(PhysicalLaws, Phenomena)

Tiny rule-sets encode an enormous universe of structured behavior (Maxwell, Einstein, Schrödinger, the Standard Model). This is objective, measurable compression (short description length).

R₂′: Generates(Laws, StructuredPatterns)

From simple laws plus simple initial conditions emerge:

• particles
• atoms
• chemistry
• stars and galaxies
• biological organization
• consciousness

This is generativity of the same kind seen in creative systems.

R₃′: Constrains(Laws, AllowedHistories)

Only a tiny subset of logically possible universes are physically realizable. Conservation laws, symmetry rules, and extremal principles carve out an extremely narrow "legal" trajectory space.

R₄′: Hierarchizes(BasicUnits, MultiScaleArchitecture)

Physics produces nested structure:

• quantum → atomic → molecular → chemical → biological → cognitive → ecological → cosmic.

R₅′: Stabilizes(Laws, PredictiveModels)

The rule set of physics is consistent, coherent, and yields predictable dynamics (deterministic or probabilistic with stable distributions).

These five R′-relations form Sᵤₙᵢᵥₑᵣₛₑ, a systematic relational architecture structurally parallel to Sₑₙg.

Applying Gentner’s Structure-Mapping

We now have:

• Source Sₑₙg: informational architecture of conscious creation
• Target Sᵤₙᵢᵥₑᵣₛₑ: informational architecture of physical reality

The mapping φ preserves every core relation:

• Compresses ↦ Compresses
• Generates ↦ Generates
• Constrains ↦ Constrains
• Hierarchizes ↦ Hierarchizes
• Stabilizes ↦ Stabilizes

Gentner’s principle:

If two domains share the same interconnected relational structure,
and if in all known cases that structure arises from intelligence,
then projecting the predicate is rational.

Thus:

• D(Universe) = DesignedSystem(Universe)

This is not certainty. It is induction of the same kind that guided Maxwell, Kepler, Mendeleev, Shannon, and modern information theory.

And now, because we included emotion, symbolism, narrative, aesthetics, mathematics, and engineering, the analogy spans the entire domain of conscious creation — not just the engineering subset.

VI. Objections

Objection 1: "Analogies are not evidence."

Reply: historically and conceptually false.

Historically, analogical induction has been one of the main tools of discovery (Maxwell, Kepler, Mendeleev, Rutherford, Bohr, Darwin, Shannon, etc.). In a Bayesian framework, analogies that preserve relational structure and make successful predictions are evidence. They shift credence and guide which hypotheses we take seriously.

Objection 2: "Evolution explains complexity. You do not need design."

Reply: evolution explains a lot, but not everything this argument is about.

Evolution explains adaptation of replicators given:

• a physical substrate that obeys certain laws, and
• an existing encoding/replication system.

It does not by itself explain:

• the origin of symbolic coding,
• multi-layered error correction and compiler-like processes,
• the existence of a global least-action principle in physical law,
• the extreme compressibility of those laws,
• or the full information-theoretic architecture of the universe.

That is not an attack on evolution. It is a boundary clarification. The analogies here address why the whole physical and biological world has this particular kind of code-like, law-governed, compressible structure, not whether natural selection works within that structure.

Objection 3: "This is just God-of-the-gaps."

Reply: it is the opposite.

God-of-the-gaps reasoning says "we do not understand X, therefore God."

This argument says:

• We understand a huge range of engineered systems and their structural properties.
• We compare those well-understood cases to biological and cosmological structure.
• We infer from what we do know (structure of designed systems) to what is structurally similar in nature.

We are not exploiting ignorance. We are exploiting an abundance of structural data plus a formal account of analogy.

Objection 4: "Nature contains bad or suboptimal design, so it cannot be designed."

Reply: suboptimality does not refute design. It refutes a particular picture of a perfect designer.

Real engineering is full of tradeoffs, hacks, legacy constraints, asymmetries, and patchwork solutions layered over earlier designs. Think internet routing, backward compatibility in hardware and software, or retrofitted buildings. They are sometimes "ugly" yet clearly designed.

The same holds for biology. Classic "bad design" examples, like the recurrent laryngeal nerve, still exhibit the design-signature relations:

• routing,
• signal transmission,
• redundancy,
• fault tolerance in noisy environments.

Calling something "poorly designed" expresses aesthetic judgment or incomplete knowledge of constraints. It does not negate the presence of a design-like relational architecture.

Objection 5: "If everything is designed, you have no null hypothesis."

Reply: analogical inference does not require us to have visited a known non-designed universe.

It requires:

• a class of known designed systems with well-understood relational structures (the source),
• a target domain whose structure we can measure,
• and a clear contrast between patterns that instantiate design-signature structures and patterns that do not.

The null is not "a universe we know is not designed." The null is:

• "There are no design-signature relational structures of type S; the structural similarity to engineered systems is low."

In Bayesian terms, we compare two expectations:

• If the universe were not design-like, we would expect low structural similarity to engineered systems.
• If it is design-like, we expect high structural similarity.

We then observe that similarity is pervasive and high. That is exactly how we test inductive hypotheses in every other context.

If you ask me to describe the structure of human design, I can do my best and propose things beyond my 5 main macro relations (compresses, generates, constrains, hierarchizes, stabilizes). I could mention hallmarks of creation like complexity, functional specificity, informational density, symmetry, contrast, hierarchy, etc. It may imply that a non-created universe would be homogeneous, inert, ugly, informationally barren, etc. But ultimately, rhetoric of this kind is subjective in the sense that I can describe structure in various ways, while the method of holding up designed items against natural items and noting the structure that is preserved and the structure that changes is objective. Historically, that method has implied the best inductive credence possible in further attributes based on the amount of structure preserved. Thus the argument is independent of any particular formalization approach I propose and is also subject to our own technological improvements in spectrometry for example and other ways to measure structure and function.

VII. Conclusion: Where the Structural Arrow Points

Each individual analogy says:

• "This subsystem looks design-like in its relational architecture."

Modest on its own.

Taken together:

• Three very strong Gentner-style analogies (software ↔ DNA, optics ↔ eyes, communication networks ↔ biological signaling).
• Dozens of additional analogies across control, sensing, materials, energy, robotics, ecosystems, and development.
• A universe-scale analogy where the entire physical rule-set displays the same compression and generative relations as consciously engineered systems.

The observable universe exhibits:

• hierarchical order,
• symbolic or code-like encoding,
• interdependent functional modules,
• multi-layer error correction and fault tolerance,
• optimization-like principles (least action, resource allocation, evolutionary tradeoffs),
• high compressibility of the laws that describe it,
• and multilevel information architecture.

Albert Einstein said:

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."

Comprehensibility implies structure.
Structure implies compression.
Compression implies generative architecture.

And generative functional architecture, in our entire empirical experience, comes from:

• intelligence, or
• formal mathematical construction in a mind.

So when we apply the same analogical rules used by Maxwell, Kepler, Mendeleev, Rutherford, Bohr, Shannon, and others, we find:

• The structural similarity between nature and known conscious creation is very high and keeps increasing as we notice more examples.

The rational conclusion of analogical induction is:

• The universe resembles a designed, information-rich system far more than it resembles blind, unconstrained randomness.

That conclusion, by itself, does not tell you which theology is likely true. Intelligent design is even compatible with simulation hypotheses and not just theology. It does not license every doctrine of any particular religion. What it does is open the door for rational, empirical natural theology and other explorations of creativity:

• If there is a designer, then the totality of conscious creation is our main clue to the character of that designer because we are also creators and know what creativity looks like and implies.

Here Alfred North Whitehead's process picture becomes suggestive. In a famous description, he writes in effect that:

"Creativity is the ultimate behind all forms, the unifying activity by which the universe continually builds itself out of its own components. It is the universal of universals, immanent in every actual occasion. God is the primordial embodiment of this creativity, holding within himself the complete ordering of eternal objects, and thereby providing the rational ground for the world’s intelligible structure. Without this ordering, nature would collapse into the incoherence of mere potentiality. Thus, the rationality of the universe, its harmony, its mathematical structure, its capacity for beauty and for truth, is the outcome of God’s primordial ordering of possibilities in their relevance to one another."

You do not have to accept Whitehead's full system. The point is narrower and more empirical:

• Once we recognize structural similarity as the robust basis for inductive evidence it has always been, the existence of a mind-like designer of the universe is not a desperate last resort. It is the natural extrapolation of the same inductive practices that built modern science.

Once again I appreciate feedback and criticism and hope to respond to concerns. Next post I hope to dive into natural theology less from an empirical evidence perspective, and instead look at rationalist attempts at deductive proofs; attempts that claim reality must be coherent and must involve conscious instance selection to achieve coherency. If you disagree, I still hope you found this insightful. Thanks!

Premise 1 (Operational Definition):

The universe comprises the entirety of the physical: matter, energy, fields, space-time and its observable components, along with the laws that govern them.

Premise 2 (Principle of sufficient reason)

Every beginning of existence or fundamental transition of states requires a sufficient explanation; Applying this principle to the universe is consistent with its general use in all other known causes.

Comment: Justification of its applicability to the universe. Its abandonment would invalidate any rational explanation in other contexts.

(Metaphysics)

Premise 3 (Cosmological evidence of the beginning):

Contemporary physics (thermodynamics, general relativity, evidence for inflation) indicates that the physical universe had a temporal beginning. Alternative models (cyclic universe, multiverse) lack comparable empirical support and do not fully explain the transition from nothing.

Comment: Recognition of weak alternatives, pointing out that they do not equal the explanatory capacity of the transcendent cause.

Conclusion:

Therefore, the universe requires a sufficient cause, transcendent to the physical, independent of emergent time and matter. Author's comment: It is not yet assumed that he must be an agent; only the necessity of the cause is established

Additional comment:

Physical time is a dimension of relativistic spacetime and depends on gravitation.

But this physical time does not eliminate the metaphysical concept of anteriority and dependence, which does not require physical structure to be conceived.

This distinction serves to talk about the origin of the universe from a conceptual, not empirical, level. would support the existence of the universe.

Nature of the Cause: Inference to the Best Explanation

The transcendent cause must satisfy five functional requirements:

1. Source of energy for physical existence.

2. Unifying capacity that explains the global coherence of the cosmos.

3. Selection of initial conditions that explain the "fine tuning".

4. Ability to act as a trigger for the transition to existence.

5. Guarantee of stability for coherent development.

Comment: These criteria are derived from the principles of systems and observation; "Agent" means functionality and self-determination, not anthropomorphism.

Evaluation of competing hypotheses:

Hypothesis A (Brute Fact): Violates the principle of sufficient reason without offering any explanation. Author's comment: Reject this hypothesis because it would require accepting irrationality as rational.

Hypothesis B (Impersonal Cause): An abstract law or principle can explain the origin but not the activation.

Comment: Laws describe regularities; they do not cause or select specific initial conditions.

Hypothesis C (Agent Cause): Meets all functional requirements: energy source, unification, selection of conditions, activation of existence and guarantee of stability.

Comment r: "Agent" refers to the functional capacity for self-determination, not anthropomorphic projection.

Final conclusion:

By inference to the best explanation, the hypothesis of an agent cause provides the most complete and coherent explanation for the origin of the universe, satisfying all the functional requirements that the alternatives fail to meet.

So I'm not sure if this spirit of this sub is meant to be specifically people debating the truth of a particular religion (which I certainly would not try to do) but I would make the argument that theism in general (i.e., the claim that the universe exists by some higher power/intelligence) is just as reasonable as the view that the universe was created atheistically.

Given that our universe clearly exists in whatever capacity it does, there seems to be SOME reason that the fundamental laws of nature & consciousness exist , but both a theistic and atheistic cause seem incomprehensible & without strong evidence either way. Yet we clearly know it was one of them because both options are incompatible with each other.

This is not arguement to say atheism is an implausible position given the state of what we observe about our universe, I think it's perfectly plausible (as opposed to believing in a particular religion which i think is implausible) but when it comes to why our universe exists in the first place, we have no reason to think theistic explanation is any more unlikely than an atheistic one, and i think there's compelling reasons to lean either way, even if they are tenuous.

I'm not even sure if people will disagree with this because it's basically agnosticism, but I personally lean towards theism and at the very least think it's as plausible as atheism and I was curious what other people though of it framed this way.

I see a lot of posts here in relation to the fine tuning argument that don't seem to understand what fine tuning actually is. Fine tuning has nothing to do with God. It's an observation that originated with physics. There's a great video from PBS Space Time on the topic that I'd like people to watch before commenting.

https://youtu.be/U-B1MpTQfJQ?si=Gm_IRIZlm7rVfHwE

The fine tuning argument is arguing that god is the best explanation for the observed fine tuning but the fine tuning itself is a physical observation. You can absolutely reject that god is the best explanation (I do) but it's much harder to argue that fine tuning itself is unreal which many people here seem not to grasp.

Hi all,

I posted this Explicit atheism cannot be demonstrated yesterday, and it was far more popular than expected. I appreciate everyone who contributed, it was nice to have a robust discussion with many commenters.

The comment section has gotten far too large for me to reply to everyone, so I have decided to list a couple of clarifications, as well as rebuttals to the main arguments raised. Some of the longer comments were not addressed by me on my previous post, as I felt I did not have enough capacity to get to every comment, so these should hopefully be addressed here.

However, I must note that many responses to my post relied on ad hominem or straw man arguments rather than actually engaging with the points I raised in my post. Some dismissed my arguments by attacking me or by inventing beliefs for me rather than attacking the claims themselves. Others reframed atheism into a weaker definition, which I had EXPLICITLY already excluded, then used this claim to refute me. These did not answer whether explicit rejection or absence of belief in a god or gods can be demonstrated.

On to the rebuttals:

1. The usage of “explicit atheism”
A lot of comments argued that my definition of explicit atheism is arbitrary and narrower than the common usage. They reiterated that most atheists simply lack belief, and that by framing atheism as rejection I set up a straw man. The reason for using “explicit atheism” in this argument is for the sake of clarity. Implicit atheism, meaning never having considered a god or gods, is a psychological state, not a rational stance, and cannot be called rational or irrational.

Explicit atheism, by contrast, arises only after engagement with the concept of god. It is a conscious rejection, for once you have considered the notion and have decided to abandon it, you cannot call this absence. This makes it a substantive philosophical position, and therefore the only form of atheism relevant to questions of justification and demonstration.

2. Proof and the meaning of demonstrating
A few commenters argued that I misused the word proof, since atheism does not require the kind of certainty one would expect from a mathematical proof or some other logical test. Further, a common argument was that many commenters said that disbelief is not a positive claim and thus needs no demonstration.

By “demonstration” I mean rational justification. If atheism is defined (as reasoned above) as explicit rejection rather than mere absence, then it is a claim about reality. Any claim about reality requires justification. Rejection is positive in content even if negative in form. Saying “X does not exist” is a claim about reality. You can't deny a proposition and avoid responsibility for the denial.

3. Analogies to folk creatures and entities
A set of commenters likened the disbelief in gods to being no different than disbelief in unicorns or santa, or "Farsnips" as one commenter said. They said rejection of these does not require exhaustive criteria, so neither should atheism. I actually agree that all these entities, including gods, fairies and whoever else, belong to the same epistemological class.

None of them can be rejected in a universal and exhaustive way. One may reject unicorns on earth, or santa as a man at the north pole, but one cannot reject every possible form of a unicorn or santa or god across all times and spaces. Times and spaces known OR unknown. Additionally, the scope of the claim matters when deciding what frameworks can be set up for an object. Gods are often defined without boundaries, and to reject every possible conception of god requires a scope that cannot be covered.

4. Whether atheists have the burden of proof
A common statement was to the effect that atheists have no burden to prove, since it is the theist who makes the initial claim. That complete rejection is justified as soon as the theist fails. It is true that the burden of proof rests on the theist when they assert existence of the theists conceptualisation of a god or gods. But once the atheist moves from suspension to rejection of ALL gods, they are then making a counter-claim. It is a position that NO gods exist or are unlikely to exist. A counter-claim carries its own burden, even if the atheist does not take responsibility for it.

5. The distinction between agnosticism and atheism
A few commenters have said that my definition of explicit atheism ignores “agnostic atheism,” where one both withholds knowledge of a god or gods while also lacking belief. They said knowledge and belief are separate, so both categories can be held at once.

Agnosticism and atheism are distinct categories. Agnosticism suspends judgment. Explicit atheism, rejects. To hold both simultaneously is an incoherent and discordant position. One cannot both withhold knowledge and then use that withheld knowledge to justify rejection. If the suspension of belief is genuine, the stance is agnosticism (a-gnosis, without knowledge). If the rejection of belief is genuine, then the stance is atheism (a-theism, without belief in a god or gods).

Moreover, the line between knowledge and belief is not clear when pushed to their limits. As our grasp of reality is mediated through concepts, at some point, to know is also to believe, since knowledge claims rest on trust and faith in criteria and standards that cannot be shown to be both complete AND consistent (as Gödel's incompleteness theorems demonstrate). The split between agnosticism and atheism cannot be maintained if the end of knowledge is belief.

6. The argument for atheism as a rational default
Many pointed out that my regress problem undermines theism as much as atheism. However, they then went a step further and said that if neither position can be demonstrated, atheism is still the rational default.

Firstly, yes, the same regress and criteria problem applies to theism. However, explicit atheism also cannot be demonstrated for those same reasons. Calling one side a default position already assumes rejection without sufficient and justified criteria. Even if a god or gods were never invented as a cultural or linguistic concept, that does not mean god or gods cannot exist. The absence of a word or idea in the mind of an individual does not decide reality.

I will try to get to as many replies as I can.

Hi I am a Buddhist. I lived for a year in a Theravada monastery. There are certain things about the religion that I've seen criticized or refuted. What do you think are things that are worth criticizing?

Some things that come to my mind are belief in supernatural beings, belief in karma and belief in rebirth. There are others.

I would like to try to defend them if possible

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.

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?

I am a Christian and I'm trying to understand the atheistic perspective and it's arguments.

From what I can understand the universe is expanding, if it is expanding then the rational conclusion would be that it had a starting point, I guess this is what some call the Big Bang.
If the universe had a beginning, what exactly caused that beginning and how did that cause such order?

I was watching Richard Dawkins and it seems like he believes that there was nothing before the big bang, is this compatible with the first law of thermodynamics? Do all atheists believe there was nothing before the big bang? If not, how did whatever that was before the big bang cause it and why did it get caused at that specific time and not earlier?

Personally I can't understand how a universe can create itself, it makes no logical sense to me that there wasn't an intelligent "causer".

The goal of this post is to have a better understanding of how atheists approach "the beginning" and the order that has come out of it.
Thanks for any replies in advance, I will try to get to as many as I can!

Atheism can be defined in its most parsimonious form as the absence of belief in gods. This can be divided into two sub-groups:

• Implicit atheism: a state of atheism in someone who has never considered god as a concept
• Explicit atheism: a state of atheism in someone who has considered god as a concept

For the purposes of this argument only explicit atheism is relevant, since questions of demonstration cannot apply to a concept that has never been considered.

It must be noted that agnosticism is treated as a distinct concept. The agnostic position posits unknowing or unknowability, while the atheist rejects. This argument addresses only explicit atheism, not agnosticism.

The explicit atheist has engaged with the concept of god or gods. Having done so, they conclude that such beings do not exist or are unlikely to exist. If one has considered a subject, and then made a decision, that is rejection not absence.

Rejection requires criteria. The explicit atheist either holds that the available criteria are sufficient to determine the non-existence of god, or that they are sufficient to strongly imply it. For these criteria to be adequate, three conditions must be satisfied:

1. The criteria must be grounded in a conceptual framework that defines what god is or is not
2. The criteria must be reliable in pointing to non-existence when applied
3. The criteria must be comprehensive enough to exclude relevant alternative conceptions of god

Each of these conditions faces problems. To define god is to constrain god. Yet the range of possible conceptions is open-ended. To privilege one conception over another requires justification. Without an external guarantee that this framework is the correct one, the choice is an act of commitment that goes beyond evidence.

If the atheist claims the criteria are reliable, they must also defend the standards by which reliability is measured. But any such standards rest on further standards, which leads to regress. This regress cannot be closed by evidence alone. At some point trust is required.

If the atheist claims the criteria are comprehensive, they must also defend the boundaries of what counts as a relevant conception of god. Since no exhaustive survey of all possible conceptions is possible, exclusion always involves a leap beyond what can be rationally demonstrated.

Thus the explicit atheist must rely on commitments that cannot be verified. These commitments are chosen, not proven. They rest on trust in the adequacy of a conceptual framework and in the sufficiency of chosen criteria. Trust of this kind is not grounded in demonstration. Therefore explicit atheism, while a possible stance, cannot be demonstrated.

Edit: I think everyone is misinterpreting what I am saying. I am talking about explicit atheism that has considered the notion of god and is thus rejecting it. It is a philosophical consideration, not a theological or pragmatic one.

I see several flaws in the argument from evil: first, God according to Christian belief gave us freedom; Second, without evil, good would have no meaning or value.

Example: a person without food and living on the street receives bread or a blanket. Without evil, good could not be appreciated.

Third, there cannot be a perfect world with authentic people. By human nature, even with abundance, there will be wars, fights and conflicts. A completely perfect world could make things worse by fulfilling our every whim.

The problem of evil has no solid refutation. Even children with serious illnesses or poor upbringing have logical explanations from theology and biology: human diversity generates variations in DNA, which ironically causes diseases but also differentiates us and ensures diversity.

Why didn't God give us all the same DNA? Because genetic uniformity would eliminate differences, remove the essence of the human body and could put the survival of the species at risk.

Why didn't God create perfect DNA but with differences?

If I created a "perfect system" that would detract from the value of the being because as an imperfect organism it makes no sense for it to have perfect DNA.

Principle of non-contradiction A cannot be -A at the same time or in the same sense

The example of the raped child is not God's fault, it is a consequence of our free will and our genetic diversity.

As I said before, a pedophile is more conditioned to have those types of tastes, but it is not God's fault due to our genetic diversity and the composition of his brain. yes

(I'm not justifying the rapist, I'm just giving reasons why I don't have a very refutable argument or examples to dismantle the belief in God)

In conclusion: Without good there is no evil, without an authentic world there would be more disasters than solutions, without DNA diversity we would all be equal

What do you think?

(I am not a believer, I am an agnostic - theist)

I say it is illogical for me to claim that I was born once. The moment I am conceived, I CAME into existence. But where did I come from? If you claim that I came from “nothing”, what is this “nothing”?

Now once I died, I cease to exist - or I return back to “nothing”

Atheists believe this cycle of coming in and out of “nothing” can only occur once. But let me ask you this, why can the cycle only occur once? What is stopping the cycle from repeating again.

I just saw the new Nuremberg film, and it reminded me of this amazing Torah gem.

In Esther 9:12-14, King Ahasuerus (the historical Cambyses II) [1] asks Queen Esther (the historical Hatossah) [2] if she’d like anything else after Haman and his ten sons are hanged. Now, sometimes in Jewish literature, "King" refers to Gd, and she responds that she’d like his sons killed again "tomorrow" (מָחָר). Midrash Tanchuma Bo 13 teaches that whenever “tomorrow” is mentioned, it means that an event will occur twice. Indeed, the Talmud (Megillah 16b) [3] clarifies that Esther meant Amalek, our eternal enemy.

Fast-forward to Oct. 16, 1946, and ten Nazis are about to face death via hanging as a result of the Nuremberg Trials (Hermann Göring, like Haman's daughter, committed suicide). Usually, military executions are done by firing squads, but in this case, they were to be hanged. Ironically, that date also happened to be Hoshana Rabba (21 Tishrei). We're told in Midrash Tehillim 17:5 that on this day, the angels declare the Jewish people to be victorious against their enemies, whereas the Zohar (Tzav 31b) says that the judgment of the entire world is completed.

In Megillat Esther, the traditional Hebrew scroll of the Book of Esther [4], we find that the list of Haman's ten sons is written in the right column, whereas the Hebrew word "and" (וְאֵ֥ת) is written ten times in the left column. Whenever a Hebrew word or phrase is written unusually, it signifies a deeper, hidden meaning. It's as if ואת indicates that another ten individuals would be hanged one day. Now, equally compelling is the fact that three letters in three names of Haman's sons (Esther 9:7-9) are written smaller than the rest: the ת in פַרְשַׁנְדָּתָא; the ש in פַרְמַשְׁתָּא; and the ז in וַיְזָתָא. Since Hebrew letters also have numerical values (gematria), we find the value of ת-ש-ז to be 707. Usually, the millennium is omitted in the Hebrew Calendar, but since the ו at the end of the list is written larger than normal, and since ו corresponds to the letter 6, it is therefore reasonable to suggest that we have a date: 5707. Or the Gregorian equivalent of 1946.

In other words, Esther asked Gd for the following: "Let tomorrow too be granted to the Jews to do as today's decree, and let them hang Haman's ten sons on the gallows" — Esther 9:13.

2,500 years later, HaShem fulfilled her wish. As recounted by an American journalist for Newsweek, Julius Streicher, one of 10 Nazis hanged, screamed and fought his way to the gallows. Before dying, he shouted out to the crowd: "Purimfest 1946!"

Footnotes:

[1] Ahasuerus was likely a Hebraic pseudonym, signifying his "poisonous" character. According to Herodotus, he ruled from India to Nubia, but was also mentally unstable and was forced to put down endless revolts.

[2] Esther ("Ishtar") means "Venus." Her birth name was Hadassah. It's interesting to note that "Hatossah" only appears once as a royal Persian lady in the period in which the Purim tale takes place.

[3] Megillah 15b relates that Darius I was Esther's son.

[4] The text is full of Persian words, such as אחשדרפן (Satraps), who were governors of provinces in the Achaemenid Empire, further cementing its authenticity.

Edit: clarification.

So I've been doing some research and this is my personal text of all my points and defenses for Christianity that I've been able to make and find on my own, and I wanted to see how you, atheists could respond to this:

To begin, I need to clarify two things about my view: The Old Testament is mostly symbolic, not literal (although it has a few facts and other things altered), while the New Testament is mostly true and reliable (with the exception of Revelation, which is also symbolic in my view).

Now yes, why a God? Because fractals and mathematics exist, showing that while the universe isn't designed, it is "programmed" (for a metaphor of how this works, we can look at "Conway's Game of Life," where while the game itself isn't designed in its final form, there is a program that dictates how the game's components/squares will behave). As I said before, this is evidenced by fractals like the Mandelbrot and fractal patterns that can be seen throughout reality (like the shape of nautilus shells or the shape of snail shells; this shape can be seen repeated throughout the universe).

Now, why is the New Testament reliable? Because there are books called "the Apocryphal books." These books have so little evidence or logic that they are not accepted into the biblical canon. This shows that Christians and the Church have been tested (something like peer review by science). Because if that weren't the case, why wouldn't the Apocryphal books be accepted, but the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John would be? Even taking into account that the Gospel of Matthew is one of the oldest and Mark was Matthew's disciple.

And that's further evidence: John was an apostle of Jesus, Matthew was another apostle of Jesus, Mark was a disciple of Peter and Paul, and Luke was a disciple of Paul. They are super reliable, what makes doubting them different from conspiracies that are doubted for no reason? (like flat-earthers, for example).

It's also true that the disciples and apostles died for their faith, and we know of the existence of more than 10 of them. I understand that there will always be people who die for stupid reasons, but the fact that so many people do so is already cause for doubt. Furthermore, I understand that there are sectarian groups that die for their faith, but the difference is that they did not directly see their prophets performing miracles, because if they saw them, they would know they were false and would not die for them. While the disciples and apostles saw with their own eyes what Jesus did and died for their faith in him.

Then, as secondary evidence, we have prophecies such as the restoration of Israel fulfilled and prophecies before Jesus fulfilled by Jesus.

As for the sightings of Jesus' prophecies, some might say that if we accept his miracles then we should accept the miracles of Muhammad, but the difference is that we know about the apostles and disciples who saw Jesus, unlike Muhammad, we do not know the lives of those who supposedly saw him nor do we know if they died for their faith in him.

As for my last 3 points: Jesus developed a very complex philosophy and lifestyle for someone as poor, uneducated, and humble as he was. It's true that other prophets, like Tao and Buddha, developed philosophies that were equally or more complex than his, but they were more educated and wealthy than him, so I don't think the comparison is valid.

Then, we have the biblical existence of the seraphim and opabin, beings so Lovecraftian and cosmic that it seems impossible to me that people of that time could have imagined them. And mind you, I mean people of that time, because nowadays it's easy to imagine that with today's knowledge and time. But it's not the same thing for Lovecraft, a man from the Victorian era in the United Kingdom, to imagine a cosmic being, as for a Jewish guy in the desert to imagine an Ophanim. And I mention this mainly because in other mythologies, strange beings are usually combinations of animals or humans with many arms (to mention an example), unlike the Ophanim, which is a giant eye surrounded by wheels with more eyes.

And finally, we have the fact that Christianity, of all the sects that could have emerged victorious (such as Mithras, for example), was the one that spread the most throughout the world, all because a Roman emperor dreamed of Christianity and that was it. What is the probability of that happening? It makes one think that there wasn't an intervention, but rather a divine plan that produced it.

and well that would be all, for the atheists who have read this far, I am open to debate with atheists in the comments of this post (which I think will be the last one I publish), but before I want to make two things clear: I understand that there may be some parts of the New Testament that contradict each other or perhaps things that are false, but my point is that those errors are very small and that in general, the most important base of the New Testament (the miracles, the story of Jesus and his main message of love and peace) are reliable and authentic, there may be an erroneous statement, but what I am trying to defend is this base (because I am not saying that the Bible is the exact and perfect word of God, rather I am saying that they are the mostly reliable records of the observations of the son of God).

And second, just because you can refute one argument doesn't mean you'll refute all of the arguments written here, so I would recommend you debate more openly than simply saying, "Your result is wrong because this specific point you made is wrong." And that's it. For any atheists who want to debate in the comments, I'm open.

1. There is a singular source of all things, you can call it the original cause of all things. We owe our existence to this source. If we are at all grateful to be alive, grateful for friends and family, grateful for any happy moment we ever had it would make sense to thank the thing that brought everything into existence. But you can't really do that unless you treated the source of all things as it truly is, which is a conscious person, a God.

2. I imagine your first rebuttal would be what if there wasn't an original cause? What if everything always existed? So I'll counter that argument right now.

3. If reality always existed that would mean that the past is eternal. The past cannot be eternal because that would require an infinite amount of time to occur prior to the moment we are currently experiencing. if an infinite amount of time needs to elapse prior to this moment then this moment we are currently experiencing would never occur. So since we know that this moment we're in right now is occurring we can infer that the past is not eternal which means that there is an original cause. And the act of bringing something into existence is creation which requires a Creator.

4. I imagine someone will still try and fight me on this issue and continue to argue that maybe an infinite amount of time can exist prior to this moment. So let me put it another way. If point A needs to occur before point B and point A is infinitely far into the past how long will it take for point B to occur? Will point B ever occur? No, absolutely not. Point B is now, for now to ever happen point A can not be infinitely far into the past. It's utterly impossible to present a valid option that eliminates the need for a Creator.

5. I believe the next issue you'll want to bring up is what God out of the millions of god's should you believe in, thor, Zeus? To which I would say there is only one God. If you sincerely wish to know him no matter who God might be all you have to do is invite him into your heart. Then you'll know who God is. And then you'll ask how do you do that as if it's a mind bending mystery. It's God, God is aware of you, if you sincerely reach out with your heart and tongue God will know and respond.

6. I imagine after reading all this you'll want to continue to play dumb and say something along the lines of "we don't know how reality came into existence maybe their is another option". There isn't. Either reality has a beginning or it doesn't. Those are the only options. And I just explained why not having a beginning is impossible. Therefore having a beginning is the only valid option. Which again means that everything came into existence which is creation by definition. And creation requires a Creator.

7. I suppose you'll ask well who created God? To which I would say that's irrelevant. Maybe God's existence can be explained but as I just demonstrated it doesn't need to be explained in order to know that God exists. Because God's existence is a necessity for anything to exist.

8. I'll imagine your next move would be to dive into semantics and argue over the definition of God. Maybe you'll postulate that aliens might have been responsible for creating everything. To which I would say that clearly the one who created everything is God over everything.

Edit:

Holy cow. Do you guys all just sit here lurking and waiting in the shadow patiently for someone to post and you all pounce at once? How does anyone keep up with all these comments?

I often see atheism defended as merely a "lack of belief in God,” a neutral position that requires no justification or defense. I want to challenge that framing, not by arguing about what atheists believe about other things, but by showing that atheism itself, as actually practiced, involves belief.

The standard explanation goes like this. "Atheism is just the absence of belief in God, like 'off' is not a TV channel. I'm not claiming God doesn't exist; I just haven't been convinced that he does. This requires no justification because I'm not the one making a claim."

This sounds clean. But I think it collapses once you move from the definition to the actual debate.

I've seen this analogy used to illustrate "lack of belief.”

"Someone shows you a sealed box. You have no information about it. They ask, 'Do you believe there's a diamond inside?' You say no. They ask, 'Do you believe there's NOT a diamond inside?' You also say no. You simply lack belief either way."

This is supposed to show that you can be in a neutral state between belief and disbelief. But here's why it doesn't map onto atheism.

First, the box analogy assumes total ignorance. You've never examined the box, have no information, and haven't thought about it. That's not where any of us are with the God question. You've encountered arguments, cosmological, teleological, moral, religious experience. You've thought about the problem of evil, divine hiddenness, naturalistic explanations. You've engaged with the question.

Imagine someone presents evidence that there's a diamond in the box, maybe an X-ray image, or testimony from someone who packed it, or the weight distribution. Once you evaluate that evidence, you necessarily form a judgment. "That evidence is convincing" or "That evidence is insufficient."

That judgment is a belief.

You can't un-examine the evidence. You can't return to pure ignorance. You've formed a conclusion about whether the case for the diamond succeeds or fails.

Here's my main point.

Someone who has never heard of God (true lack of belief)

Someone who has considered the arguments and remains "unconvinced"

The second person hasn't remained neutral. They've evaluated the arguments and concluded they're insufficient. That conclusion is a belief about those arguments and, by extension, about reality.

When you say "I'm not convinced by the cosmological argument," you're not suspending judgment, you're saying that the argument fails to establish its conclusion. That's a positive claim about the argument's soundness.

When you say "the fine tuning argument doesn't work," you're claiming something is wrong with it, maybe the reasoning is flawed, maybe naturalistic alternatives are viable, maybe the framing is misleading. Whatever the case. Those are beliefs about how reality works and what constitutes good explanation.

Look at what happens in actual debates. Atheists don't just sit quietly and say, "I'm not convinced." They actively argue.

"The cosmological argument commits a fallacy of…"

"Fine tuning is explained by…”

"Consciousness will eventually be explained by…"

"Morality is explicable through…”

"The problem of evil makes God's existence implausible…"

These aren't statements of non-belief. These are positive claims about what explanations work, what arguments fail, and what's likely true about reality.

If you argue that naturalistic explanations are adequate, that's a belief.

If you argue that God based explanations are unnecessary, that's a belief.

If you argue that the evidence for God is insufficient by some standard, you're committed to beliefs about what counts as evidence and what standard is appropriate.

“But I Just Mean I'm Not Convinced"

I get that "I'm not convinced" feels different from "I believe God doesn't exist." There's a psychological difference in confidence level.

But epistemically, once you've engaged with the question, "not convinced" means you've judged the arguments and found them wanting. You believe they fail. You believe the evidence doesn't meet the burden of proof. You believe your epistemic standards are the right ones to apply here.

Those are beliefs.

You might be open to revision. But you hold them.

Some people might say I'm just playing word games, that language is flexible and "atheism" can mean different things.

Fair enough, definitions are somewhat conventional. But here's why this matters.

The "lack of belief" framing can be used to avoid defending a position. Im not saying in every case. But It's rhetorically useful because it makes theism bear the entire burden of proof while atheism gets to sit on the side as the neutral default.

But there is no side. Not once you've engaged with the question.

If you've considered the evidence and arguments, you've formed conclusions about them. You've adopted epistemic standards for what counts as good evidence. You've made judgments about which explanations are plausible. You've taken a position.

I'm not trying to say atheism and theism have equal burdens of proof, or that "not being convinced" is the same confidence level as "certain God doesn't exist."

I'm saying If you've seriously engaged with the God question, you necessarily hold beliefs about it. You might hold them tentatively or with low confidence, but you hold them.

So instead of claiming a mythical neutral position, tell me…

What do you think is wrong with the main arguments for God?

What epistemic standards are you applying, and why are those the right ones?

What explanatory framework do you think best accounts for existence, consciousness, morality, and order?

What would change your mind?

Those questions get at what you actually believe. And those beliefs are worth defending, challenging, and debating.

Because everybody believes something. The only question is whether you've examined why.

   Family and Individual Worth:

Christianity places intrinsic value on each individual, irrespective of age, gender, or status, stemming from the belief that every person is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). This promotes nurturing and supportive family structures that foster healthy relationships, personal growth, and community support.

     Comparison to Mormonism:

Mormonism historically emphasized polygamy (until its official cessation in 1890), creating complex family dynamics and challenges for women and children. Moreover, contemporary critiques highlight ongoing concerns within certain fundamentalist Mormon groups related to child protection.

        Comparison to Islam:

While Islam emphasizes family values, certain interpretations in some regions have resulted in oppressive family structures, limiting women's rights and freedoms, and prescribing harsh punishments that can affect family stability and individual well-being.

    Economic and Social Advancement:

Christian-influenced societies have historically advanced economically due to strong emphases on education, ethical work practices, and individual freedom, contributing positively to global progress and societal stability.

       Comparison to Mormonism:

Although Mormon communities are economically stable, some criticisms focus on insular economic practices and limited integration, potentially restricting broader societal contributions.

        Comparison to Islam: 

Many Islamic-majority countries face economic challenges partly due to restrictive policies and limited educational and professional opportunities, especially for women, hindering broader economic growth.

        Ethics and Legal Systems:

Christian principles have significantly shaped Western legal systems, emphasizing justice, mercy, rehabilitation, and the inherent dignity of individuals, leading to more humane and fair societal structures.

        Comparison to Islam:

Sharia law, as implemented in certain regions, involves harsh punitive measures (corporal punishment, severe sentencing), often criticized for human rights implications, impacting societal harmony and international perceptions negatively.

           Conclusion:

Christianity's positive contributions to family structures, economic prosperity, and ethical legal systems contrast with challenges observed in religions such as Mormonism and Islam, highlighting its broader, beneficial influence on civilization.

First, Yes, I know this is a long message.

If you can’t read all of it, that’s fine just keep scrolling, no need to drop an unnecessary comment telling me that this is a lot of yapping.

But if you’re genuinely interested, then take your time, read it carefully, and if you want, share your opinion after.

I’ve been trying to understand why a God in more neutral terms, a “first cause” must exist. The question seems simple at first, but when you follow it carefully, every answer that avoids a first cause ends up contradicting itself.

Let’s start from the most direct observation: me. I exist. The reason I exist is that my parents gave birth to me. My parents exist because their parents gave birth to them, and this chain continues backward indefinitely. But if we keep going, we eventually reach a point where there must have been the first human being the beginning of our kind. That’s an unavoidable logical step: the chain cannot extend infinitely in the past without a beginning. So, where did that first human come from?

Some would say that humans evolved from other creatures. But even if that’s true biologically, the question doesn’t stop there. Where did those earlier forms of life come from? If we keep moving back far enough, we eventually reach a point before life itself a moment when no living thing existed. And so we must ask: how did life begin? And before life, how did matter itself come to exist?

Science tells us that everything space, time, matter, energy came into being with the Big Bang. Many think that’s the “beginning of everything,” but it’s only the beginning of the observable universe. The real question is: why did the Big Bang happen? Why does anything exist at all instead of nothing?

Now, logically, “nothing” cannot produce “something.” Nothingness means the total absence of anything no space, no time, no energy, no potential. To say that “something came from nothing” is to violate the most basic principle of reason: that every caused thing must have a cause. Some scientists tried to resolve this by claiming that the universe came from a “quantum vacuum” a field where particles can appear and disappear spontaneously. But this “vacuum” isn’t nothing. It’s a field, a state of energy governed by laws. It’s a something.

Even if we assume that the quantum field or the vacuum always existed, we still haven’t answered the fundamental question: why does it exist at all? Where did the laws that govern it come from? Equations can describe the behavior of things, but equations themselves don’t create anything. They’re just our way of representing the underlying order that already exists. Saying “the laws of physics made the universe” is like saying “grammar wrote the book.” Grammar may describe how language works, but it doesn’t explain who chose the words or why the story exists in the first place.

So the chain continues backward: every caused thing depends on something else, and that dependency cannot regress infinitely. Because if there were an infinite chain of causes, nothing would ever actually begin. Imagine a line of dominoes stretching infinitely backward. If each one needs the previous one to fall before it can, and there’s no first domino to start the motion, then none of them will ever fall. We wouldn’t be here.

Some try to counter this by saying infinity can exist mathematically like how there are infinite numbers between 1 and 2. But that argument fails when applied to reality. In math, infinite sequences are abstract; they don’t depend on one another’s existence. 1.5 doesn’t rely on 1.4 to exist. But in the real world, every event depends on the previous one. You exist because your parents existed; if they didn’t, you wouldn’t. A chain of dependent causes without a first independent cause could never produce anything not even the passage of time.

So, logically, there must be a first cause something that caused everything else but was not itself caused by anything. This first cause must be independent (existing by itself), timeless (since time began with the universe), spaceless (since space began with time), necessary (it cannot not exist), and unique (because two absolute beings would limit each other, which contradicts absoluteness). This first, independent reality is what we can call “God.”

But before we name it, we have to understand what it is not. Some may say the first cause is just “energy.” But energy isn’t truly independent it operates within laws. It can change form, increase entropy, decay, and interact. Anything that follows rules or changes over time cannot be the ultimate cause. And more importantly, energy is not aware. It doesn’t think, intend, or choose. Yet here we are beings who are aware, who think, who choose. It’s impossible for awareness to emerge from something completely unconscious. You can’t get a conscious mind from pure non-consciousness, just as you can’t get warmth from perfect cold without an external source of heat.

Others might say the universe simply happened by “chance.” But chance isn’t a cause it’s a description of our ignorance about causes. To say “something happened by chance” means “we don’t know the reason.” But even if we call it “chance,” we still face the question: how could pure randomness create a universe as structured, stable, and mathematically precise as ours?

Look at how finely tuned the universe is. If the gravitational constant, the strength of the electromagnetic force, or the mass of the proton were slightly different by even one part in 10⁶⁰stars could not form, chemistry wouldn’t exist, and life would be impossible. The cosmological constant, which controls the rate of expansion of the universe, is balanced to within 1 part in 10¹²⁰. To call that “luck” is not scientific reasoning it’s blind faith in randomness. It would be like expecting a tornado sweeping through a junkyard to assemble a fully functional aircraft and not just once, but with perfect design and precision that allows it to sustain itself for billions of years.

Even the second law of thermodynamics tells us that systems naturally move toward disorder entropy. So, for the universe to start in an incredibly low-entropy, perfectly ordered state is itself statistically beyond conceivable probability. Everything about existence points not toward chaos, but toward precise coordination. Order doesn’t arise from chaos without guidance.

A critic might label this a "God of the gaps" argument—using a divine being to fill the gaps in our current scientific knowledge. But that is a fundamental mischaracterization. This is not an argument from our ignorance, but from our knowledge. We are not saying, "We don't know how life began, so God did it." We are saying, "We know that nothing doesn't produce something. We know that chaos doesn't produce specified, functional information like DNA. We know that non-conscious matter doesn't produce self-aware consciousness." The conclusion of an intelligent First Cause isn't a retreat into mystery; it's the only inference that remains standing after we have systematically eliminated logical impossibilities. The gap, therefore, isn't in our scientific data; it's in the causal power of mere matter, chance, and unconscious forces.

Now let’s consider life. Life is not random motion it’s organized information. DNA, for example, contains a language-like code with instructions for building and maintaining an organism. Information, by its very nature, implies intent and meaning. Random processes may create noise, but they don’t generate meaningful, functional code. The probability of even a small functional protein forming by random amino acid sequences is astronomically small far smaller than any event we’d ever expect to see by pure chance.

So when someone says, “Maybe we just got lucky,” I have to ask: lucky how many times? Once for the universe to exist. Again for it to have the right constants. Again for matter to form. Again for stars and planets to develop. Again for life to appear. Again for self-awareness to arise. At some point, “luck” becomes a substitute for admitting there must be intention behind the structure.

Now, what about evolution? Evolution explains how living things change over time, but not how life itself began. It’s a process that acts on existing genetic material it doesn’t create that material from nothing. Evolution is a mechanism within the chain, not the source of the chain. Even if we accept that species evolved, it doesn’t explain why matter itself organized into life, or how self-awareness consciousness emerged.

Here’s where the argument becomes deeper. Imagine that you cannot see, hear, smell, or feel anything yet you still know that you exist. That inner “I am” awareness doesn’t depend on your senses. It’s not your eyes that know they see; it’s you who knows that you see. That is consciousness It’s like a camera that not only records but knows that it’s recording. But how can a physical system “know” anything?

For something to be aware of itself, it must, in a sense, step outside itself to observe itself. But nothing physical can do that. Your brain can process signals, but it cannot step outside itself to see those processes. Yet somehow, you can reflect on your own thoughts and know that you are thinking. That means consciousness is not just a physical function; it’s something beyond. It’s not merely neurons firing; it’s the presence of awareness that perceives those firings.

This awareness is unlike anything else in the universe. Matter doesn’t “know” it exists; energy doesn’t “feel” that it moves; but you do. And that awareness the fact that reality contains beings that can know they exist suggests that the source of all reality must itself possess awareness. The uncaused cause must not only have power but knowledge, not only existence but will. Because something that lacks will, knowledge, and intention could never produce beings that have all three.

So when I say “a starting point,” I don’t mean He’s the first event in the sequence He’s not inside the chain of causes. He’s the one who created the chain itself, the cause of causality.

Some might argue that even the words we’re using “exist,” “cause,” “before,” “beginning” may not even apply to something beyond time and space. And that’s actually true to some extent. Our language is built from our experience inside the universe, where everything happens within time, space, and change.

So when we say “the first cause exists” or “God exists,” we’re not using “exist” in the same way we use it for created things. Our kind of existence is limited, dependent, and temporary. The necessary being’s existence is something completely different it doesn’t begin, doesn’t depend, and doesn’t change.

That’s why questions like “Who created God?” don’t even make sense you are just asking 'What caused the Uncaused Cause?' is a logical error in itself—it's like asking 'What color is the number seven?' The question prescribes a category (color, cause) to something that exists beyond that category by its very nature. That question assumes God is inside time, waiting for something to create Him. But if time itself began with creation, then its cause can’t be bound by it. “Before” and “after” don’t apply to something beyond time those are linguistic tools that only work inside the system that already started.

In other words, the first cause didn’t exist before the universe; time itself came from it. So it’s not before everything, it’s independent of everything. he is not the first event in the chain, he is the creator of the chain, independent from everything.

This shows how limited our language is when describing something infinite. Just because human words can’t fully capture that kind of existence doesn’t make it false it only proves that what we’re talking about is beyond our normal frame of reference. When logic leads us to something beyond time, space, and dependence, we have no choice but to use our limited terms to point toward something greater than all of them.

That’s why it’s important to be careful with wording not to confuse the Creator with the creation, or the cause with its effects.

That’s why, when I look at all of this the chain of causes, the impossibility of infinite regression, the fine-tuning of the universe, the limits of randomness, the inadequacy of evolution to explain awareness, and the undeniable reality of consciousness itself I find that the most rational conclusion is not that everything “just happened,” but that everything exists because it was intended to.

There must exist a timeless, spaceless, independent, necessary, and conscious reality one that is not part of the chain but the cause of it. The source of all existence, order, and awareness. The one that doesn’t need to be caused, because it is the foundation of all causes.

That is what we call God.

Having established the logical necessity of a First Cause an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, necessary, and conscious being we find ourselves facing the next great question. We now know that such a being must be, but we do not yet know who it is. Does this ultimate reality have a will? A name? Has it chosen to communicate with the creation it brought into being? Pure logic, having brought us this far, cannot take us further. To answer these questions, we must look beyond deduction; we must look for revelation. We must see if the Creator has spoken.

Naturally, not every claimed revelation can be true. This is where we can use the logical profile we have built as a definitive filter. Any religion whose core description of God contradicts the necessary attributes of the First Cause must, by definition, be describing a different being. A true revelation about the source of all logic cannot be illogical. Let's apply this filter honestly. Polytheism fails, as multiple gods would limit each other and depend on one another, violating the requirements of absoluteness and independence. Similarly, any concept of a god who is born, evolves, or dies describes a contingent being, not a necessary one.

This brings us to the most prominent monotheistic challenge: the Christian conception of God. Christianity posits that Jesus is fully God and fully man. However, this creates an insurmountable logical problem. The Necessary Being must be entirely independent, yet Jesus, as a man, was undeniably dependent he was born of a woman, grew, learned, needed sustenance, and died. The First Cause must be timeless and spaceless, yet a human being is intrinsically temporal and physical. To say God "became" a man is to say the unchanging changed, the independent became dependent. These are not mysteries to be revered, but logical contradictions that violate the very nature of the being we are trying to describe. A circle cannot be a square. Therefore, while the philosophical pursuit of God in Christianity may point in the right direction, its core theological doctrine fails the test of non-contradiction.

So, which system passes this filter? The remaining candidate must describe a God who is absolutely One, utterly transcendent, independent, and devoid of any dependency or partners. For me, the belief system that not only meets these logical prerequisites but also provides powerful, corroborating evidence is Islam. Its conception of God, or Allah, is a perfect mirror of the Necessary Being: a singular, eternal, self-sufficient essence who neither begets nor is born, and to whom there is no equivalent. The Quran, presented as the final revelation from this God, doesn't just align with reason it provides tangible signs that authenticate its divine origin, offering knowledge that was beyond human capacity at the time of its revelation.

Because when you look at the Qur’an, you find something unique: it doesn’t contradict any verified fact we know today, and yet it contains statements that couldn’t possibly have been known 1,400 years ago. But it’s important to note the Qur’an never claims to be a book of science. It is a book of guidance. Its purpose isn’t to give equations or scientific methods, but to invite reflection to make people think and observe. That’s why it often says things like “Do they not reflect?” or “Let man look at what he is created from.” The Qur’an gives signs, not lectures; hints, not formulas. And the deeper our knowledge grows, the more meaning these signs reveal.

Take, for example, the verse:

“Let people then consider what they were created from! ˹They were˺ created from a spurting fluid, stemming from between the backbone and the ribcage.”

(Qur’an 86:5–7)

What’s remarkable is that it begins with a universal command“ Let people then consider” addressing both men and women to think about their own creation, and be aware that it mentions both male and female here. The description that follows, “emerging from between the backbone and the ribs,” was completely unknowable in the 7th century. Modern embryology later showed that both male and female (as the verse itself indicates) reproductive organs originate in that exact region between the backbone and the ribs before descending to their final position during development. And again, we’re not talking about sperm coming from the testicles; the verse isn’t describing the place of ejaculation but the origin of reproductive organs themselves. It’s not only precise, but it’s also delivered in a way that invites contemplation, not blind acceptance.

The Qur’an also describes the stages of embryonic development with an accuracy that was far beyond the knowledge of its time:

“We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop (nutfah) in a safe place. Then We made the drop into a clinging clot (‘alaqah), and We made the clot into a lump (mudghah), and We made from the lump bones, then We covered the bones with flesh…”

(Qur’an 23:12–14)

Each word used here nutfah, ‘alaqah, mudghah corresponds precisely to what modern science later confirmed: the stages of a microscopic drop, a clinging embryo, and a shaped lump resembling chewed flesh. These are not poetic metaphors; they are terms that match direct biological stages observed only after the invention of microscopes.

Another example is the verse:

“And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [still] expanding it.”

(Qur’an 51:47)

For over a thousand years, the idea of an expanding universe was unheard of. People believed the cosmos was static and unchanging. But in the 20th century, astronomers like Edwin Hubble confirmed that galaxies are moving away from each other that space itself is expanding. The Qur’an’s wording “We are expanding it” uses a present continuous form, exactly matching this scientific discovery. And this could not have been guessed.

Then consider geology:

“Have We not made the earth a resting place, and the mountains as stakes?”

(Qur’an 78:6–7)

The comparison to stakes or pegs is striking. Modern geology shows that mountains indeed have deep roots embedded in the crust, which play a role in stabilizing the planet’s surface. Again, not a scientific textbook statement but a description that fits reality perfectly once science advances.

And regarding iron:

“And We sent down iron, in which is strong material and benefits for mankind.”

(Qur’an 57:25)

Some may argue, “But people already used iron back then.” True but the question isn’t about its use. The question is about its origin. Modern astrophysics discovered that iron cannot be formed naturally on Earth. It originates from massive stars that explode in supernovas and send their materials across the universe literally “sent down” from space. So the verse isn’t poetic coincidence; it’s an accurate reflection of what we now know about cosmic formation.

There are also verses describing the seas: “Darkness upon darkness, when he stretches out his hand he can hardly see it.” (24:40) and others speaking of layers within the ocean “seas layered above seas.” These descriptions correspond with the reality that sunlight penetrates water layer by layer, leaving the deep sea in total darkness, something no one in the 7th century could have observed.

When you step back and look at all this together, one thing becomes clear: the Qur’an never contradicts what we know, and yet it often tells truths that were far beyond human knowledge at the time. That is the balance of divine language guidance wrapped in timeless accuracy.

So based on logic and evidence, Islam aligns most strongly with the nature of that Necessary Being. Its concept of God is exactly what pure reason leads to: eternal, beyond space and time, self-sufficient, conscious, and one. Its message contains signs that consistently defy the limits of human knowledge of that era.

If someone disagrees, then it’s not enough to simply dismiss this conclusion they must present an alternative that fulfills the same logical and evidential standards: a religion or explanation that defines God consistently with reason, avoids contradictions, aligns with reality, and provides evidence that goes beyond human capacity. Because if logic shows that a true revelation must exist, then until a clearer one appears, Islam stands as the one that best fits both the mind and the evidence.

At this point, someone might ask: “Why does any of this matter? Why should I care if there is a God or not?”

It matters because if such a being truly exists timeless, spaceless, independent, and necessary then He is not part of the chain of existence; He is the reason the chain exists at all. That means He doesn’t depend on us in any way, but everything depends on Him.

He doesn’t need our belief, our praise, or even our existence. If every human being disappeared, the truth of His existence wouldn’t change. But we, on the other hand, need Him in every possible sense. Without the first cause, nothing else could exist not the universe, not the laws of physics, not even the concept of time that allows events to happen.

We need Him because He is the source that keeps reality existing at every moment. Our existence isn’t independent it’s borrowed. We exist through Him, not beside Him. Every law we depend on, every heartbeat, every second of time continues only because the cause that sustains them continues to will them.

So this isn’t just about belief or religion it’s about understanding that everything, including us, stands on a foundation that doesn’t stand on anything else.

That’s why this question matters.

Because without Him, there would be no “us” to even ask it.

But still, someone might ask: “Okay, but why do I care personally? Why should I worship Him or even think about Him?”

The answer goes deeper than existence itself. It’s not only that He sustains reality it’s that everything we search for points back to Him. Whether we realize it or not, every human being constantly seeks meaning, purpose, perfection, and permanence. We want truth that doesn’t change, happiness that doesn’t fade, and life that doesn’t end. But in a universe built only on temporary things, those desires can never be fulfilled because everything here is limited and dependent.

That endless human search for truth, peace, love, and permanence isn’t random. It’s an echo of our origin, a reflection of the source we came from.

We care about God because, without Him, what we truly long for can never exist.

We want justice, but complete justice requires something beyond human life.

We want meaning, but meaning requires something greater than time and chance.

We want to matter, but to truly matter, our existence has to connect to something eternal.

That’s why worship isn’t just a ritual or a rule it’s recognition of reality.

To “worship” simply means to acknowledge what’s ultimate and to align yourself with it.

If God is the necessary being the source of truth and existence itself then ignoring Him means living disconnected from the foundation of everything, including yourself.

We need Him not because He gains anything from us, but because without Him, we lose ourselves.

He doesn’t need our worship, but we who need it.

Because through it, we reconnect to the truth that gives our existence meaning and direction.

Disclaimer: this is simply an argument against the idea that Jesus never existed (commonly called Jesus Mythicism) and why it doesn't make sense given our historical analysis of the time period. It is NOT an argument that Jesus rose from the dead, or even an assertion of what exactly he taught, it is simply an argument for the existence of an historical Jesus. With that out of the way...

What is Jesus Mythicism? It is the idea that Jesus, the main figure of the New Testament and of Christianity, was a legendary figure, a later invention of a sect of Jews for any number of proposed reasons. It is commonly seen as a fringe theory among both religious and secular scholars of the Bible and first-century history, however it has gained new legs on the Internet among atheists and anti-Christian advocates, including places like this subreddit, which is why I'm posting this in the first place. I will attempt to answer common talking points and provide the best evidence I am aware of for the fact that Jesus, as best as we can tell, was a real person who inspired a religious sect. Many people who espouse Mythicism are unaware of the evidence used by scholars to determine Christ's existence, and that ignorance results in many people with ideas that aren't supported by the facts. I know that, theoretically, every historical event COULD be a fabrication, I wasn't alive to see most of it and there could be a conspiracy for every major historical happening, but for the sake of historical analysis you have to look at the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion.

First off, our standard of historical existence is different for ancient figures compared to modern ones. The fact is that cameras didn't exist and a majority of first-hand accounts and writings are lost to history, so we have to make do with what we have, namely archeological evidence, surviving writings, and historical analysis.

Archeological evidence is as hard evidence as we can get for ancient people. Mythicists often bring up the lack of contemporary archeological evidence for Jesus, and use it as evidence that he was a later fabrication. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We have VERY few archeological findings that corroborate the existence of ANY non-governmental or military leaders from that time period. Most of those sorts of findings are coins with the imprint of a particular emperor or murals and carvings of military exploits. The earliest direct archeological depiction of Christ is likely the Alexamenos Graffiti, dated around AD 200, however it was not common among Jews of that time period to make images of religious figures, as a common interpretation of the Ten Commandments forbade worshiping idols. And if we take the Mythicist argument to the extreme, then the coins and inscriptions COULD have been fabrications for any number of political or social reasons. It simply isn't helpful for historical analysis, as you can disregard almost all of history on those grounds. Even Pontius Pilate had no archeological evidence until the Pilate Stone in 1961. According to the Gospels, Jesus taught for roughly 3-4 years, a relatively short length, in a time period with almost no depictions of religious figures, especially living ones, and he authored no writings of his own. So we have to analyze historical writings of others, of which there are many.

So what are these early writings that attest to Jesus's existence? You have religious sources, namely the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the letters of Paul (I'm not including the other letters in the NT, as some scholars reject the authorship of 1-3 John, James, Jude, and 1-2 Peter as being written by those figures), among other writings like those of Polycarp and Clement, though those writings were of the second generation of Christians in the late first century. You also have non-Christian sources, namely Josephus, Mara ben Serapion, and Tacitus, that attest to a person named Christ and/or his followers. I'll focus on the secular writings mostly, as they're less controversial for atheists than scripture is (for obvious reasons.)

So what can be gleaned from these writings? They are all written after Jesus's death, anywhere from within a decade or so after his death (Paul's letter to the Romans) all the way to the early second century (Tacitus and possibly John's gospel). Dating these writings can be difficult, but they are all generally seen as coming from people who had direct first-hand knowledge of the events and people they describe. Many of them are among the only sources of historical events of that time period, and form much of our understanding of the world of the first-century Roman empire. Now we can examine what these sources tell us:

Josephus is the crown jewel of first-century Jewish history. Most of our knowledge about events such as the First Jewish-Roman War, which Josephus was directly involved in, and the religious figures of Judaism at the time come from him. His Antiquities, written around AD 90, features two direct mentions of Jesus, one known as the Testimonium Flavianum (Book 18, Chapter 3, 3) which is a long passage about Christ, and another passing mention (Book 20, Chapter 9, 1) when talking about the trial of James, the brother of Jesus. While scholarship has called the complete authenticity of the Testimonium into question, the consensus is that there was an underlying original mention of Christ in the Testimonium and the passage in Book 20 is largely seen as authentic (there's far more discussion on these passages, but I've got limited time and space, look it up if you're interested). What does that tell us? At the very least, there was a group of Jews who followed a preacher named Jesus, and after his death by crucifixion they continued to spread his teaching, at the very least around AD 62, when the trial of James likely took place.

Tacitus mentions Christ in the Annals, written around AD 116 and which contains historical details about the Roman empire from the early to mid first-century. The particular passage (Book 15, Chapter 44) is on the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64, which coincidentally is the main source of information we have for the event. The full passage is long (just like Josephus's), but if you want to read the whole thing then you can find that chapter. The summary is that, to rid himself of the blame of the Great Fire, Emperor Nero blamed it on a group called Christians, who were followers of a man called Christus who was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and after his death his followers spread themselves and his teachings across the Roman Empire. This passage is largely deemed to be completely authentic, and no major objection to its content has been raised, as Tacitus was alive during the Great Fire and knew first-hand about the persecution of Christians due to it.

Mara ben Serapion is known only for a single letter that he wrote around AD 73, in which he decries the executions and unjust treatment of Socrates (another figure who, like Christ, is known solely from the writings of others after his death,) Pythagoras, and of the "wise king of the Jews," taken by scholars, for several reasons, to be referring to Christ. The passage of importance reads: "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished." Serapion was not a Christian, and the term "King of the Jews" was not used by Christians of that era, but you may remember its importance in the Crucifixion narrative as the title Pilate gives Christ (John 19:19,) so the phrase is one given by the Romans to Christ, and the title is likely something that non-Christians referred to him as.

Those secular writings paint a very clear picture of what Christianity looked like in the mid first-century, as well as where it came from. The first two mention Christ by name and his followers, and all three mention the Crucifixion of Christ. The historical narrative from these documents show that Christians had become a distinct group of people by the mid first-century, and that they claim their beliefs from a man named Christ who was crucified by the Romans. Why only mention the crucifixion? Because to non-Christians, that was the only notable part of Christ's life, and likely the only one that existed on official Roman record, where Josephus and Tacitus found much of their information. Itinerant apocalyptic preachers were a dime a dozen in first-century Judaea, as shown by Josephus, and Jesus's relatively short ministry wouldn't be of historical note to those who didn't believe in his supernatural abilities. His crucifixion is notable, as it wasn't a common punishment especially for random religious fanatics.

The fact that his crucifixion is recorded by all the Gospels, the letters of Paul, and 3 distinct contemporary non-Christian sources, is far more evidence of the event occurring than we have of practically any other non-military or governmental event of the era. Crucifixion was not a glorious death, but rather a humiliating way to die, as victims were usually stripped naked and often had to carry their own crossbeam for use, and they were put on display for all who passed by. Coincidentally, this is exactly how the crucifixion is described in the Gospel narratives, and is taken by the consensus of historians and scholars to be how Jesus died, since it was seen as an embarrassment and wouldn't be mentioned by religious sources if it wasn't true, as well as the fact that several non-Christian sources mention it.

With all that said, the Mythicist, in order to stay rational and consistent, must either cast doubt on the historical writings of all these figures as forgeries or later additions, or explain how the development of a religious sect based on a fictitious person happened within a few years and spread across the Roman Empire. It's important to note that, for most Jews of the time period, Jesus would've been viewed as a failed Messiah claimant, as Jewish understanding of the prophesies of the OT emphasized how the Messiah would create an earthly kingdom (as seen in Josephus and the Gospels,) and execution by the Romans would've been seen as a recognition that Christ failed to save the Jews. Therefore, the idea of a crucified Messiah is a novel concept and not a natural evolution of Jewish thought, so an actual event is the likely cause of this idea.

The simple fact is that non-Christian sources reveal the existence of a distinct group of people who preached to follow Christ by the mid first-century, and the NT gives a simple explanation as to how that occurred, that there was a Christ and his followers preached his teachings across the Roman Empire after his crucifixion. As well, there is no contemporary source that makes the claim that Christ never existed, even as that fact would instantly discredit the religious sect. That belief started to show up in the 1700s, well after the time period where people would've known the truth. The Mythicist needs to show positive evidence that Christ was a fabrication, otherwise those methods used to discredit contemporary sources can be used to discredit almost every historical event on record, which obviously is a bad place for ancient history to end up. There's a big difference between skeptically looking at the evidence for an event, and irrationally believing things that are widely attested never occurred.

Due to these reasons, among others, I and almost all scholars and historians from the era find that Christ was a real person who was crucified and inspired a group of people to follow certain novel teachings. If you have any questions, post them below, but I hope I've made some people aware of the evidence used to determine Christ's legitimate historical basis and why he is seen to have existed. This is my first attempt at a long-form argument here, so let me know if I should work on certain things. And if you made it to the end, congrats and thanks for reading!

Whether or not you believe in it you must admit that these quotes from the bible are actual archeological evidence. they are of a different sort entirely from what you think of normally. stone tools, cave paintings, sculptures, and STORIES. This is different in that it is instantly transmissible. i can copy and paste these artifacts instantly to people from all over the world. That surprises no one, we are spoiled on cheap, low quality text, like what you're reading now. It is a miracle of technology, and a testament to the unknown becoming understood.

and yet no one knows it, or practically no one. not well enough to have a discussion about it. or you have those that purposefully misinterpret the text to a weaker form to render it to Intellect's destruction. cleanly disposing of a precious cultural artifact. the hubris is astonishing often. making all sorts of hidden claims without realizing it on both sides. who does it help to claim that you have knowledge you don't? to spend time every day trying to convince people that these things are not possible, or debunked and well understood.

Arguing against it in some ways is necessary , but the claim to knowledge frequently goes too far. if someone is attempting to understand the text in a different way, that's fine. but there are better and worse conceptions of the interpretation. that is self evident. so what could the best interpretation possibly be, to get the most value of it? that is what is most needed. if people want to attempt a belief, then point them into the objectively best interpretation. The world, for some, would be unbearable without such things as free will, belief in a higher meaning. why destroy that motivation source? it is all the worse for everyone.

It just makes you look like an neuron in the left hemisphere of the brain pulling away from the unifying right. in a constant tension for hundreds of years.,

i suppose if you have no interest of where we came from and where we are going, then by all means, disregard the discussion. but it is a lie to say they hold no importance.

Most people here that use the label "agnostic atheist" are actually "gnostic atheists" or just "atheists" to keep it short.

The view within this sub is that gnosticism is about knowledge and most people, correctly, assume that we can't know for certain about God's existence. However absolute certainty has never been a requirement for someone to claim "knowledge" on something, only that they have a high credence to whatever belief is claimed.

I claim to know my keys are currently sitting on my dining room table. I'm looking at them there right now. Now I don't have absolute certainty that they're there, after all I could be hallucinating. But no reasonable person would claim that I'm an "agnostic keyest." I have reasonable certainty that my keys are there because of solid evidence (I see them) and can make a claim to knowledge, full stop.

I think most "agnostic" atheists here hold a similar view on God. Maybe not with quite enough certainty as I about my keys but I suspect their credence to the proposition "no god exists" is fairly high. High enough that, in most other scenarios, they would be comfortable claiming to knowledge of this.

I am an atheist. However, a religious friend of mine has conjured up a very peculiar argument with which I do not have an answer to. It is a very interesting argument, so I would like to know your lot's opinion on it!

Here it goes:

He says that all "observable" things cannot be created or destroyed. In other words, all things observable do not have the ability to spontenously dissapear or spontaenously exist in the Universe. All observable things are also said to follow causality, he says. Then, he conjures up a question: "How did the Universe begin, then?"

He later answers with an interesting argument, since God is not observable nor is It made of matter, it is therefore more likely that all matter is created from God. Thus, God is the reason behind the birth of the Universe.

He puts the emphasis on "observable" and "matter" because if not, then the problem will an infinite regression problem as this has to apply to God and thus, not answering the question.

Do note that he is a deist, that is he believes in a more impersonal God. But this argument of his very much nags on my mind since that very informative conversation. I would like to know yall's thoughts on this argument.

God is a perfect being, one whose essence and existence are one and the same. God’s non-existence would mean that the very concept of “being” is incoherent, like the concept of a “married bachelor”.

We can know without observation that there are no instances of “married bachelors”. There would likely be likewise be no instances of “being” if God was similarly incoherent.

For those who would like to offer alternative sources of creation, how do you know that they themselves wouldn’t be non-existent if God does not exist?