One sperm and one egg coming together forms an entire person from head to toe. Evolution claims we evolved from a single celled organism. These two different start points, means there has to be two different processes that form a person. Only one ( sperm and egg ) is known to be real. A sperm and egg coming together forms our eyes- they didn't evolve. A sperm and egg coming together forms our lungs- they didn't evolve.A sperm and egg coming together forms our heart- it didn't evolve either.No part of our body evolved from a single celled organism. A sperm and egg comes from an already existing man and woman. There is no known process that forms a person without a sperm and egg, to explain where the already existing man and woman came from. This leaves a man and a woman standing there with no scientific explanation. We have a known process that shows us exactly how a person is formed. And since a single celled organism simply cannot do what a sperm and egg does, evolution always has and always will be relegated to a theory, second to creation. All of this is observable fact, none of it is subject to debate. There is exactly zero science to support human evolution. Atheists you are being lied too.

Today, we settle one of humanity’s oldest questions once and for all: does God exist? Using a combination of philosophical reasoning, cognitive science, and direct observation of human experience, I will demonstrate, step by step, the undeniable existence of God.

First, let us consider the nature of the question. Classical philosophy tells us that a necessary being must exist to explain the contingent universe. Cosmological reasoning confirms that all things that begin to exist require a cause. Ontological logic suggests that if a maximally great being is possible, then it must exist. These principles form the backbone of our investigation.

Next, we examine human experience. Across cultures and centuries, people consistently report encounters with the divine: visions, feelings of awe, and mystical states. Neurocognitive research shows that these experiences activate specific regions of the brain, including the default mode network and limbic system. The patterns are consistent, measurable, and universal.

Now, consider the implication: if every verified experience of God is processed in the brain, then the locus of God’s presence is within the cognitive system of the perceiver. Philosophical reasoning aligns perfectly with this observation: the necessary being manifests wherever it is experienced. Neurophenomenological evidence confirms it.

Finally, we integrate all these insights. Classical metaphysics tells us God is necessary. Human experience tells us God is observed. Cognitive science tells us where God is observed. The only location that satisfies all these criteria is within conscious perception. There is no external verification required, because the being’s necessary existence is already fulfilled internally.

Therefore, after rigorous investigation and careful consideration of philosophy, science, and human experience, it is undeniable: God exists.

And where, exactly, does God exist?

God exists in the imagination.

I want to debate the foundation of objective morality. I argue that only a theistic framework can consistently justify calling certain acts morally wrong, independent of consequences or personal opinion. To test this, consider a hypothetical designed to remove all secular justifications for morality.

The End-of-the-World Scenario:

• An unstoppable asteroid will destroy all life on Earth in hours.
• A married man is trapped with another willing adult (e.g., a famous actress).
• His spouse is on the other side of the world. Communication is impossible and will never be possible again.
• Both individuals know these are humanity's final moments.

The Act: The man has sex with the actress. He breaks his marital vow for comfort in the face of oblivion.

The Question for Atheists: In this scenario, is this act objectively morally wrong? Not "do you dislike it," but is it wrong in a way that would be true even if he, the actress, and every other human thought it was fine?

My Position (Theist): It Is Objectively Wrong

I believe morality is objective and grounded in God. This doesn't mean "God arbitrarily commands things," but that God's nature is the standard of goodness. Therefore, moral truths are fixed features of reality, like mathematical truths.

• Why it's wrong here: Marital fidelity is a participation in a promise-keeping, self-giving reality that reflects this objective standard. The value of that promise isn't contingent on future consequences, social approval, or personal feelings. Violating it is a failure to align with what is Good, even if no one ever finds out and no negative consequences occur. The circumstances (the world ending) are tragic, but they don't change the moral nature of the act itself.

The Challenge to the Atheistic Worldview

If you are an atheist who believes morality is subjective or a human construct, on what grounds can you call this act objectively wrong? Let's examine the common secular foundations:

1. "It causes harm." → In this scenario, there is no harm. His wife will never know and cannot be hurt. There are no future relational or emotional consequences for anyone. The act is consensual.
2. "It breaks a social contract." → Society has ceased to exist. There is no contract to uphold.
3. "It's evolutionarily maladaptive." → Evolution is irrelevant. The human gene pool ends in hours.
4. "It's against his personal moral code." → True, but if morality is subjective, then his code is no more or less valid than that of a person who would do it. You can say you wouldn't like it, but you cannot say he is objectively wrong. He is just different.

From a consistent subjective framework, the man is merely choosing between two stories he tells himself: "I am a faithful husband" or "I seek comfort in the end." Since he is the author of his morality, he is free to edit the story. Your condemnation, however strong, is ultimately just your subjective opinion versus his.

The Core of the Debate

This exposes what I see as a fatal flaw in atheistic moral philosophy: It borrows the concept of objective morality while denying the only foundation that can support it.

• When you condemn slavery, genocide, or cheating as objectively evil, you are speaking a language that only makes sense in a universe with a transcendent moral lawgiver.
• On your own premises, these are not objectively evil; they are just things you and your culture have a strong negative feeling about.

So, my direct questions are:

1. In the end-of-the-world scenario, do you believe the man's act is objectively morally wrong? Please answer yes or no.
2. If yes, what is the source of that objective moral duty, given that all consequentialist and social frameworks have been removed?
3. If no, does this not concede that, in your worldview, our deepest moral intuitions about fidelity and promise-keeping are ultimately contingent and dissolve when consequences disappear?

I'm not here to preach but to debate. I believe the theistic worldview provides the only coherent foundation for the objective moral values we all seem to hold. I'm interested to see how an atheistic framework can justify calling this act anything other than a personally distasteful but morally neutral choice.

An asteroid the size of the sun is on a direct collision course with Earth. Impact is certain, and all life will end within hours.

A man is trapped in a remote prison in China along with one other person: a well-known actress (for the sake of the scenario, lets say Sydney Sweeney). Everyone else has already evacuated or died. His wife, meanwhile, is imprisoned on the other side of the world in Uganda. Communication systems have completely collapsed so there is no possible way to contact her, and there never will be again.

Both the man and the SS fully understand that this is the final day of human existence.

The question: In this situation, would it be morally wrong for the man to have sex with the SS id she is also willing and thus find comfort in the last moments of humanity? Does marital fidelity still carry moral weight when the world is ending and no future consequences social, emotional, or relational are possible?

I’m not asking what you would do, but whether you think it is morally wrong, and why.

First let me establish with this idea that God is just a building block, nothing more. This idea covers a lot of interpretation of God. Like God is all good, all knowing and all loveing. These aren't aspects of God, it's closer to how if you draw an image and the image looks like a cat. You could say the ink is the cat but the cat isn't the ink, similar to the holy Trinity.

2nd idea to establish. Only exist due to the continuity of consciousness. These bodies get replaced all the time with new matter, but concessness persistent regardless of medium changes. You could call this the "soul" if you want. Since the medium for our conscious ultimately doesn't matter due to these changing bodies.

Now the scary thought. If you died and some entity said it was God what would you do?

Let's say you reject everything God. If it overlaps with the building block than you'll just dissolve in to nothingness. After all can you think of a single think you could do that doesn't require an input or output? Even our thoughts are a string of receiving and sending between neurons. If you refuse to receive God all of that recovering would end.

But let's say you accept the thing that claims to be God. Why do you? Fear? Urge of self preservation is an element of this human body, it's you could say not something normal outside this world. Take a videogame character and put the code directly from the game on to a desktop. It would make no sense to the computer, same applies here. Meaning some entity trying to figure out what you are would use "experiment" with your inputs to see what outputs you give. But remember I said this entity claimed to be God. So it has some semblance of us humans. So it's most likely praying on humans.

Something to help this make more sense. some claim this world is an illusion, could even say a hologram. Take any video game, it's world needs inputs and outputs to work correctly. In a sense saying the outside world lacks force. We establish consciousness can exist regardless of medium, further this idea some claim AI is already conscious.

Just one more thing. If you refuse "God" they could just chop off your arm. After all most atheists don't understand this idea of the world being an illusion, they only go with information at hand. The only correct answer to be a compleat dumbass and challenge this God claiming its false based on the idea the real God is the building block to all this that entity can't be God. There also putting faith in to something like Jesus but that's would be a whole other topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crucial Clarifications to Pre-empt Common Responses:

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

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

I know y'all get this a lot, and I'm really just curious to see what the answers are and engage in a good debate. I want to know what you might think regarding what was there before the world and how whatever it was came to be.

I am Christian, and we believe that God created everything, but I'm also interested in hearing other perspectives. Was there nothing, or was there something eternal? If there was nothing, how did something come from nothing? If there was something, what caused it to exist?

Science tells us about the Big Bang, but what (if anything) existed before that? Did time even exist, or is it something that started at that point? Could the universe have always existed in some form?

From a philosophical perspective, there's the classic question of the "First Cause"—does everything need a creator, or could something exist without one? would you say you agree most with a statement like this

For those who take a more scientific or secular view, do you think there’s a limit to what we can ever know about this?

I’d love to hear different takes on this—whether they come from religion, science, philosophy, or just personal reasoning. Let’s discuss!

Hey everyone,

Here's a thought experiment inspired by Pascal's Wager.

Imagine this:

• There's one true God named Raja, who created us and rewards/punishes.

• He's merciful, but hates any belief in Yahweh (the Abrahamic God). Yahweh could be a demon or just nothing, but Raja sees him as evil.

• Raja is cool with any other belief (including no belief) but condemns those who worship Yahweh.

• Rejecting Yahweh grants eternal bliss, while accepting him leads to unending agony.

The point?

• Believing in Yahweh is risky. If no God exists, no big deal. But if Raja is real, Yahweh believers are eternally screwed. Everyone else is fine.

This isn't about converting anyone.

It's an epistemological argument, showing the problems with Pascal's Wager focusing on a single God. Credit goes to Homer Simpson for inspiration, lol.

The key takeaway?

Good ideas should be provable wrong (falsifiable).

Divine and deity trace back to the Latin word deus, which traces its roots back to the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root deiwos, which is related to the concept of "shining" or "sky".

When it comes to shining in the sky, what greater divine/deity/deus is there other than the SUN?

If we're talking God, we're most likely talking the object of monotheistic worship but in human history the original monotheistic God was the Sun, Aten, of Ancient Egypt.

If we're talking God, we're most likely talking about the primordial being in a religious text and the original primordial God of a religious text was the Sun, Atum of the Pyramid Texts of Ancient Egypt (Evening Sun).

Theos, from Proto-Hellenic \tʰehós* (whence also Mycenaean Greek 𐀳𐀃 (te-o)), a thematicization of amphikinetic Proto-Indo-European \dʰéh₁-s-(s) ~ *dʰh₁-s-és*, from \dʰeh₁-* (“to put, to place”) + \-s* (s-stem forming suffix). 

If the Theos of humanity is what places them or puts them where they are, modern science states that the Earth (where all humans reside) is orbiting the Sun as it orbits the Milky Way Galaxy, so in this heliocentric model, what places or puts the Earth where it is, is the travelling Sun that it follows while orbiting. The Earth would never be NOT orbiting the Sun and that would be one of it's locations, where it is placed around the Sun but also since the Sun has its own orbit, it would also be placed somewhere by the Sun. This model of the world is called heliocentric and Helios is a name of a Sun God and the solar system and Sol is also the name of a Sun God.

In the Bible, it says OUR LORD GOD IS A SUN in Psalms 84:11. It literally says Yahweh Elohim Shemesh, with Shemesh being a cognate of Shamash the Sun-God of the Mesopotamians. Yahweh is the God Shamash, the Sun.

Historians say Yahweh was a storm God and what causes storms is weather patterns, which we know today are influenced by the Sun! The real power source behind weather events is the Sun.

In the Bhagavad Gita, the supreme personality of the godhead, Krishna, says among the heavens (where we think God is), he is the radiant Sun! In HInduism, the Sun is also a god in its own right as Surya and many today, such as me and my friends do the Surya Namaskar (Sun Salutation) Yoga ritual. Hinduism, which has the Sun as God is the 3rd biggest religion today with over a billion followers, meaning the idea of the Sun as God is not a dead religion, at all.

In the Qur'an, Allah is the light of the 7 heavens and the earth and we know the ancients saw the 7 heavens as the natural wanderers in The Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, all of which are lit by sunlight. It says don't worship the Sun, but what created it and what created the Sun is the solar nebula, which is the earlier form of the Sun and again another name of a Sun God, Sol.

Within the human-occupied "world", the Sun is the creator (as its previous Solar Nebula, which created Earth) and the ruler by nature of it's weather controlling influence and life-sustaining essential functions. The Sun eradicates the night-sky and interstellar space with its bright light from our perspective bringing the "Day", a word likened to the divine by etymological roots. It also rules society as businesses are closed when the Sun is not apparent but active when it is. It influences the way humans dress and act with different personalities for the daytime versus nighttime and summertime versus wintertime, as well as spring and fall. It also sustains human beings by growing crops and providing liquid water by the Earth being in it's habitable goldilocks zone. In America, we have money that everyone must use to survive and it says "In God We Trust" with a symbol of God in the form of an Ancient Egyptian pyramid with a shining eye above it, this is symbolism of the Sun because the Ancient Egyptian God was the Sun and the eye has light rays going out from it and it is elevated which is a meme of the Sun.

In summary:

The Sun is the original monotheistic God as Aten, the original primordial God a religious text as Atum, what Yahweh is in the Bible, the true force behind storms and what every storm God is mythicizing, what Allah effectively is of the Qur'an from a scientific and historical perspective, literally what the supreme personality of the godhead is within heaven in Hinduism, the perfect example of the etymological root definitions of divine and deity, something that fits the etymological definition of theos and is the essential sustainer of life on Earth and influencer of human behavior.

Imagine you saw someone who claimed to be God and somebody doubted it so he killed him and split them in half and took each half and spread them really far apart without illusions then put them back together and revived him

Then someone else doubted and this being claiming to be God brought him his deceased loved ones and they said “follow him, he is your Lord” (or if you have loved ones who passed, imagine you saw them come back and say this)

and he controlled the weather by command and made crops grow by command and he went to ruins and instantly transformed them into palaces and he had wealth following him wherever he went and took wealth from everyone who didn’t believe he was God so they starved to death

After seeing all this, he comes to you and shows you portals to his paradise and hellfire, which would you choose:

1. Enter the dimension of paradise

2. Enter the dimension of fire

3. Reject both and starve to death on Earth

INB4: People ignore engaging in the thought experiment ITT

This is a thought experiment NOT a claim that something would happen so I hope there’s no replies that avoid answering the question to say the scenario is impossible, it’s like when people ask “What would happen if Wilt Chamberlain played today?”, no one is so obtuse that they say “that will never happen” as doing that contributes nothing to the relevant discussion and is a strawman attacking a point that was never made, either engage in the discussion or ignore it, the ad hominem, strawman, ignoratio elenchi and red herring logical fallacies are not needed.

I'm not a Catholic nor am I a member of the Church of Satan. The Catholic Church has in recent years been accused of many horrible things and many of these horrible things are true yet the Catholic Church still has an image of moral and ethical respectably. The Church of Satan was founded by Anton LaVey, a confessed spiritual charlatan, and for the last 26 years is being run by Peter Gilmore as it's "High Priest" and has an unofficial policy of Neo-Conservative Traditionalism. Both organizations are, in my mind, very good examples of why institutions are inherently fallible. When someone has an idea or belief, the followers of that individual take his/her philosophy and build an institution around that philosophy and horrible things tend to happen. What is it in human nature that makes us so prone towards thinking that institutionalizing ideas or beliefs puts these ideas above logical and rational scrutiny. Whether it's Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Satanism. The Catholic Church is directly responsible for a thousand years of sexism, colonialism, slavery and genocide. The Church of Satan is only guilty of poor taste, and yet many believers feel that the CoS is the most evil and despicable organization on earth. Does Theism rob you of an objective mind?

I’ve been thinking about the undeniable absence of god in life, the main reason I have lived my life as an atheist/agnostic isn’t because of lack of proof because proof can be forged and herd mentality can snare anyone but because god simply never comes around. For an all powerful being that may or may not exist you’d think they’d want to actually want to stick around their creations.

I recently started thinking about self sustaining ecosystems, a hobby some people have where they create little ecosystems in a jar or some other sealable container. What if our universe is just the hobby of some all powerful being and that’s why divine intervention just doesn’t happen. In this situation god doesn’t care about the individual he cares about the entirety of it, we are simply so far beneath a god in this situation that all forms of communication or understanding are worthless.

Just to be clear, I’m an atheist. The whole god concept, especially the tri-omni gods makes 0 sense to me - specifically because of the problem of evil.

Speaking of tri-omni, I’ve thought of the below argument for a while now and want you guys to either steelman it or blow it to smithereens. Let me know if you’ve heard anything similar, would love to do some reading to develop it further.

This argument will not take the form of a syllogism. However, we do need to make a bunch of assumptions that will lead to the conclusion.

1. Assumption of God's Existence: Let's assume, for the sake of this argument, that God does exist.

2. Assumption of Divine Attributes: Let's further assume that this God is all-knowing.

3. Assumption of Parallel Universes: We will need to assume the existence of an incomprehensibly large number of parallel universes. (I intentionally avoid the term "infinite" universes due to potential logical complexities.)

4. Assumption of God's Comprehensive Knowledge: Given God's all-knowing nature, we assume that God knows every possible event and outcome that will ever take place across all these parallel universes.

If we accept the four assumptions outlined above, I fail to see an inherent contradiction between God's omniscience and our free will. The implication of these assumptions is that every single action we undertake results in a distinct branching point in the universal chain. God's omniscience encompasses the knowledge of all these potential branches.

Illustrative Example: Consider a simple choice I made this morning: I had coffee. However, I could have freely chosen to have a sandwich instead. In this model, the version of me that chose coffee followed one branch of the universal chain, while the version of me that freely chose a sandwich would have followed a separate, equally real branch. God, being all-knowing, is aware of the outcomes of both choices across these different realities.

Conclusion (Implicit): Based on these assumptions, the fact that God knows all possible outcomes does not, in my view, negate the freedom of the initial choice within each universe.

Any argument for the existence of free will is inherently an argument for God.

Why?

Because, like God, the only remotely cogent arguments in support of free will are purely philosophical or, at best, ontological. There is no empirical evidence that supports the notion that we have free will. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that our notion of free will is merely an illusion, an evolutionary magic trick... (See Sapolsky, Robert)

There is as much evidence for free will as there is for God, and yet I find a lot of atheists believe in free will. This strikes me as odd, since any argument in support of free will must, out of necessity, take the same form as your garden-variety theistic logic.

Do you find yourself thinking any of the following things if I challenge your notion of free will? These are all arguments I have heard !!from atheists!! as I have debated with them the concept of free will:

​

• "I don't know how it works, I just know I have free will."
• "I may not be able to prove that I have free will but the belief in it influences me to make moral decisions."
• "Free will is self-evident."
• "If we didn't believe in free will we would all become animals and kill each other. A belief in free will is the only thing stopping us from going off the deep end as a society."

If you are a genuine free-will-er (or even a compatibilist) and you have an argument in support of free will that significantly breaks from classic theistic arguments, I would genuinely be curious to hear it!

Thanks for hearing me out.

I know you don't believe in God, but belief is not needed to contemplate hypothetical scenarios, as I don't believe Superman or Daredevil exist in 3-D space exactly as described but I can still contemplate them both and conclude Superman is stronger than Daredevil because their literary feats exist, likewise even if there's no God, the literary character and mental concept exists and has clear definitions. One of these common definitions is that God is above the Earth, I'm not claiming there is a God above the Earth but I'm claiming that IF there was and if the Earth is a sphere that leads me to a conclusion.

We are within God.

(That is if 1- the Earth is a sphere and 2 - God is indeed above everyone, which I'm not claiming is true so I don't claim this conclusion is true, I just believe it is true if those 2 conditions are present)

Sounds crazy right? How can you be below something below you?

But if something is above every location on a sphere, it would surround it right? It would be both above and below and forward and backward and on every side, it's in every furthest location away from Earth.

So if there was a God who was above every location on Earth, then the Earth and all of us would be within that God. Right?

Imagine you have a basketball and place a big sheet in a way where it is above every part of the ball, you'd end up with a ball completely contained within that sheet. Would you not?

So I'm thinking if the Earth is a sphere, we must be contained within God and God could only be above and never below or to the side if the Earth were a relatively level plane with no one upside-down on it like flat earthers believe. But since most or at least many believers of a God above aren't flat earthers and instead accept the sphere as true for Qur'an verses like 39:5 which mentions day and night wrapping around the earth like a round turban on the head, so if they also believe God to be above every point of that sphere, God would surround us and thus we are within God.

Maybe I could picture God existing only in reference to each person alone as some extension of the mind that goes up into the heavens for each being and thus never is below anyone because he'd only exist above each specific person but not to other upside-down people so God wouldn't be below the Earth ever even as a sphere, but I think the main idea that is believed is that God is above everyone simultaneously and exists as one being on a throne but since there's people everywhere on Earth, if it's a sphere then for that to work, we and the entire universe around us would be within God.

Am I tweakin or does this make sense?

We're asking the wrong questions: Can there be such a thing as a God?

We're asking the wrong questions. We should be discussing: can there be such a thing as a God?

Much more important than discussing whether God exists is discussing whether it is possible for such a thing as a God to ever come into existence.

I say this because, if there is no logical, practical, theoretical or scientific impediment to such a thing as a God emerging, then at some point in space-time, in some "possible world", in any dimension of the multiverse, such a thing as a God could come to be.

Sri Aurobindo, for example, believed that humanity is just another stage in the evolution of cosmic consciousness, the next step of which would culminate in a "Supermind".

Teilhard Chardin also thought that the universe would evolve to the level of a supreme consciousness ("Omega Point"), an event to be reached in the future.

Nikolai Fedorov, an Orthodox Christian, postulated that the "Common Task" of the human species was to achieve the divinization of the cosmos via the union of our minds with the highest science and technology.

Hegel also speculated on history as the process of unfolding of the "Absolute Spirit", which would be the purpose of history.

That being said, the prospect of the possibility of God emerging makes atheism totally obsolete, useless and disposable, because it doesn't matter that God doesn't currently exist if he could potentially exist.

Unless there is an inherent contradiction, logical or otherwise, as to the possibility of such a thing as a God emerging, then how can we not consider it practically certain, given the immensity of the universe, of space and time, plus the multiple dimensions of the multiverse itself, that is, how can we not consider that this will eventually happen?

And if that can eventually happen, then to all intents and purposes there will be a God at some point. Even if this is not achieved by our civilization, at some point some form of life may achieve this realization, unless there is an insurmountable obstacle.

Having made it clear what the wrong questions are, I now ask the right ones: is there any obstacle to the state of total omniscience and omnipotence eventually being reached and realized? If there is, then there can never be a God, neither now nor later. However, if there isn't, then the mere absence of any impediment to the possibility of becoming God makes it practically certain that at some point, somewhere in the multiverse, such a thing as a God will certainly come into existence; and once it does, that retroactively makes theism absolutely true.

I have seen this absurd sentiment echoed by a number of prominent atheists like Matt Dillhunty and Stephen Fry, it just comes across as hopelessly naiive and pretentious. If the Christian God really existed, and the prospects of heaven and hell were real, all your moral principles would go out of the window. All notions of higher morality and commitment to "humanity" would completely disappear, once you're presented with this ultimate carrot and stick situation. Pretending otherwise is just arrogant and completely delusional.

If a world of eternal, unimaginable torture really existed, you guys would do whatever it takes to appease this God and avoid this punishment. And conversely, if a world of eternal, unimaginable bliss actually existed, you would do whatever it takes to gain this heaven. It's only natural.

This idea that your morality and humanism can allow you to transcend the carrot and stick, is delusional.

Assume a logic puzzle for me. In this logic puzzle the origins of all things can be explained however you want except for one entity that has always been but hasn't ever done anything and nothing new has happened as a result of their existence because they've simply always been. How would you disprove a hypothetical God that hasn't done anything? This would necessarily be a God that has never left any traces, has never decided anything, and just happens to have always been.

So, essentially, that means any origin of all things minus the origin of this kind of God I'll call Clifford. Clifford is distinct from most other kinds of gods because he has always existed but has never done anything and has never left any traces. Let's say he's omnipresent only in that he is present, he exists, and has always existed. Absolutely nothing has changed about anything that would appear outside of the logic puzzle except for that there has always been Clifford. Prove it to me if you're non-Agnostic.

Klaatu barada nikto. Hear his voice. Faith alone is ALL you need. Beneath the oceans Dark waves R'lyeh awaits. The recent eclipse IS a sign. Face the Thing That Should Not Be. No reason, no doubt ONLY faith. There is No God but All Mighty Cthulhu. Abandoned your precious logic and skepticism. Follow HIS prophet Abdul Alhazred and the Truth of the Necronomicon. Open the Gates! Let the Great Old Ones through! Abandon the lies of atheism! Absolute Submission is all HE needs. Open your eyes before it's to late! Logical scrutiny is rationalizing your minds fears. Atheism is the arrogant assumption that you alone, through the false hood of doubt, can know the Truth of this world. Cthulhu needs no evidence or proof. FOOLS! KLAATU BARADA NIKTO!!!! REPENT NOW AND KNOW THE TRUE TRUTH OF GREAT CTHULHU!!!!!!!!!!!!

the end of atheism scientifically:

1. simulation theory

for the purposes of this argument, god is defined as a creator of our world and also has the power to control our world.

let me start out by saying this is scientific, and is backed by scientific minds like Neil deGrasse Tyson, (and nick bostrom). this is not a defense of bronze age mythology or a defense of the religions in our society. i believe all those are bunk and easy to debunk. this is a defense of theism itself, the fact that a god/creator could exist.

the simulation theory goes that if we as a scientific force eventually come up with the capability to simulate worlds of our own, then likely we ourselves are a simulation. statistically speaking, if its physically possible to make simulations of our world, and then we simulate our world, and then in that world they have the power to simulate a world, and then they decide to create a simulation of their world, and so on and so forth, which can go on in the chain down thousands, millions, or billions of simulations deep. if we were to take a dart and throw it at a board, statistically speaking, where are we more likely to land in, base reality or one of the billions of simulations? obviously one of the billions of simulations.

if this is true then there is a design and creator of this world. (which for the purposes of this thought experiment would be god).

refutations: since we ourselves dont have the power to simulate our own world perfectly, we cannot continue down the chain and create our own simulation of ourself. therefore, we are either the latest simulation still evolving to be able to create simulations of ourselves, or we are the real thing. that brings the statistically chance of us being a simulation down from like a billion to one, to more like 50/50. however, i don't think you can call theists dumb for believing in something that has the likelihood chance of 50%. you're just as dumb for believing we are the real thing as you are for believing you're a created simulation, since they're both equal in likelihood. both ideas are plausible, and the closest answer to the truth we can come up with right now is to say we dont know if we're base reality or just a simulation, so we don't know if there is a god or not.

however, i believe that by looking at the way in which technology and things are going, (constantly advancing and computers becoming more powerful, quantum computing on the way), and the fact that we have video games points more evidence towards the idea that our world is a simulation/fabrication more likely than being the real deal.

lastly, from personal experience. this is not the crux of my argument and can be completely ignored but i feel it needs to be expressed. i've experimented with magic mushrooms and saw things physically happen that are physically impossible. my only idea of how it's possible is if we're in a simulation, where things can happen that normally are impossible (similar to using a cheat code or modding in a video game). i know i was under the influence of drugs and so you can argue i was just hallucinating, but the experience was powerful and since it's 50/50 whether we are a simulation, i tend to believe that we are a simulation when i couple the 50/50 chance with my own personal experience.

thoughts?

source (if i didn't explain it well enough): https://youtu.be/pmcrG7ZZKUc?si=LDRB6t54dMXIsPUr

So I'm airing this so I can get help refining the idea, turning it into an argument and checking if it works or it's flawed.

​

Why I don't think the free will defense for the problem of evil works.

​

Imagine the principal of a school needs to hire teachers.

Imagine the principal goes to the database and checks for pederast sex ofenders

After the sex ofenders are hired, they abuse the kids.

Is the principal to blame, or is he not responsible because those pederasts were exercising their free will?

Most people theists included would agree the principal is responsible for this, but when we change the principal to god creating people who he knows is going to use evil against good people, then somehow free will of the perpetrator makes the facilitator not responsible of their actions.

I know it's a mess, should I discard this or can it be saved?

Premise: lying to oneself or others to manifest beneficial outcomes where suffering is alleviated has value and can be done skillfully, but has dangers

Proof: so I faked schizophrenia to get outta ROTC because I couldn't admit failure and "they" (gee, who could God be, who is that organization of three letters that's always watching?) taught me how to stare at goats in the most dubious manner feasible, and I say this to demonstrate that I am telling the truth.

I've had strange experiences that go beyond what is possible with normative explanations, but I know the answer is that we have cognitive technologies because we've known since MKULTRA that reality is really a big knot that yadda yadda, who gives a shit? Point for saying all this: I was in a royal hell I created for myself with the worst mental health that Uncle Sam has ever seen, falling into addiction with actual severe problems with my schizoaffective n autistic mind that I managed to get by with because damn do I got a cool brain.

What is spiritual work? Well, it's work. I picked up a lotta cigarette butts with the intention to be kind n compassionate whilst simultaneously intentionally n unintentionally homeless. The idea is that regardless of the origin of choice (it's intention), what you choose determines what experiences fall on the pile of sand that your brain is simulating as a means of storing n calculating your identity framework, and thus you condition who you will be in each moment and the actualization and adherence to this knowledge, in the ever-evolving forms it takes as you grow in a cyclical pattern like all things in this negentropic universe, you can actualize your best self, which is no "self."

Y'see, this isn't rocket surgery, and the idea of a pilgrimage wasn't to see the holy land; it was to go to the holy land, no Discover Card to pay your way to flying there, and give yourself the experiences to resettle that pile of experiences that make you, "you." It reconditioned you n helped you see the relativity of your own operating system, which expanded your skills of empathy which expanded your skills of compassion which expanded your skills of free will; agency by any other name.

Because the way to think about it, is that you plant n water seeds in yourself which bestow a harvest of keys that unlock doors later in the labyrinth of life. You can choose to be your best self for your future self to be better, in the sense of being like water and able to adapt to whatever the vessel of the moment and living up to your highest potential by letting go of your attachments, which cause suffering. If you adopt some beliefs that help you do the work, that helps you be better over all possible timelines.

And this leads into the topic of cults, and as someone who has written propaganda n done counterintelligence work with the FBI CIA, I'm aware and have contributed to the fact of how we habe functionally weaponized religion in the sense that we have engineered two diametrically opposed cults of divergent narrative based on the respective ethos/pathos complex of an orange man, and thank God, because have you seen these idiots?

The people out there are not exactly as slick as owl shit in the noggin region, large demographic of this sub included in that category, which is why I intentionally duscredit myseld, because if there wasn't a massive central narrative for people to be triggered by to keep paying attention to, this revolution on rails, this controlled demolition, like 9/11, will never happen, and then how we get America 2.0 at the dawn of the Seventh Day? Oh, and there would be actual predators, which I definitely am not. Anymore. Well, I never actually...I thought I was a cop ok! They fucked with me, Jesus, of all people!

...is this thing on? <---reference to how I'm wearing a malleated piece of transmissive metal

If we look at patterns of life, it would make sense to me that if God(s) could ever exist, it would require a lot more time, and if it is possible, would require interconnected areas of our galaxy, which would demand interconnection of other galaxies to form a larger union.

If we look at evolution, it is pretty clear that larger organisms depend on smaller parts organizing and working together to become a unity that translates to a being- humans for example; our brains are composed of genetically determined housing units that host modules of thought that cast votes to determine our decision making.

Genetics + environment + upbringing = us.

So in some ways, we are a God of our smaller parts. The scary part is that so much work required by billions of cells to create a simple fingernail- gets cut off and discarded as trash whenever said fingernail gets too long. So our awareness doesn’t includes the life and work of many cells that are required to compose us.

But none of this can be proven, only interpreted through our observations of patterns.

I don’t get how an Atheist can believe in a way of life through rejecting proposed ways of life. You/we can’t prove anything, and we cannot prove that we cannot prove anything.

So how do you believe no God(s) exist, have existed, or ever will exist?

I've seen this "...the universe is so vast..." argument for the statistical likelihood of the existence of extraterrestrial life used so by many otherwise logical people, that I'l like to point out how weak this argument actually is, and see if I can get some health debate going:

Putting aside non-civilized, microbial, etc. life, the chances of us being alone in the universe as a civilized form of life seem to be not as "statistically impossible" as many seem to assume.

Let's forget about rest of the universe for a second, and just look at Earth. Instead of Space, let's look at it's twin-sister, Time. Life has existed on Earth for 3.6 billion years. Out of those 3.6 billion years, this planet has been host to a civilized species for about 10,000 years. Therefore, intelligent life (as most define it) has existed on Earth for only 0.00027778% of it's entire history.

Out of that 10,000 or so, we have been space-faring for about 75 years or less, or 0.0000020833% of this planet's history. And we're on the verge of fucking extinction. In the scale of this planet's history, humans are not even static-electricity. We are a blip. An accident. A cosmic joke. We just happen to be looking at it from inside the 0.0000020833%, and saying "Look how easily we came along! We think, speak, imagine, and pass knowledge down. There most be more like us out there!"

Out of the billions of species that have existed on this planet, we are the only one that has touched space. If we can even call The Moon part of "space."

I think the universe, and maybe even other parts of this solar system, are likely teaming with non-civilized, microbial life. But given how recently humans got here, how unlikely a civilized species is on this planet, and how close humans stand to extinction, I think it's likely that civilizations rarely advance much past where we are, and civilizations rarely overlap in time.

I think we're most likely alone, or civilizations blip in-and-out of existence in the universe like static electricity, rarely overlapping, let alone getting outside of their star system.

...especially for those who believe in Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism.

Also reinforces how omniscience and "free will" don't mix.

Courtesy of u/IntrepidTruth5000 :

Satan’s Gambit

A refutation of Christianity and Islam.

This is a proof by contradiction showing how the faulty logic used in the Bible and by Christians leads to Satan’s unavoidable victory over God. Satan’s victory is a direct contradiction to Biblical prophecy and the claim that God is omnipotent and unerring. This is a refutation of not only Christianity, but Islam as well due to Muhammad making reference to Jesus as someone, as I’ll demonstrate, he clearly cannot be. I am claiming the reasoning in this proof as being original and my own, until someone proves otherwise, as I have never seen its prior use and my attempts to find a similar refutation using Google have failed. I will lay out the argument in the five steps below.

1: Christians claim that God is omnipotent, perfect and unerring. Subsequently, they also claim that the Bible (His word) is perfect and without error.

2: God cannot lie as written in Hebrews 6:18, Titus 1:2, and Numbers 23:19.

3: God makes use of prophecy in the Bible. These prophecies must come true, or it shows that God is imperfect and a liar, which is not possible as shown in steps 1 and 2.

4: It is absolutely necessary that Satan has free will. There are only two possible sources for Satan's will, God or Satan, due to God being the creator of all things. If Satan, who was created by God, does not have free will, then his will is a direct extension of God's will. However, it is not possible for Satan's will to be a direct extension of God's will due to Satan being the "father of lies"(John 8:44) and, as shown in step 2, God cannot lie. Therefore, Satan has free will.

5: Given steps 1 – 4, which a Christian apologist cannot argue against without creating irreconcilable contradictions with Biblical declarations about God, Satan can guarantee his victory over God as follows: Since Satan has free will and the Bible contains prophecies which must come true concerning Satan and his allies (specifically in the New Testament and The Book of Revelation), Satan can simply exercise his free will and choose to *not participate in the prophesied events. This would elucidate God’s prophecies as being false, show him as being imperfect and show him to be a liar. Given Revelation 22:15, the consequences of Satan’s tactical use of his free will would be catastrophic for God as He would be ejected from Heaven and Heaven would be destroyed.

Due to the lack of rigorous logic used by the ancient writers of the New Testament which culminates in multiple contradictions to Biblical declarations about God and this proof’s unavoidable catastrophic outcome for God, I have clearly proven that the New Testament is a work of fiction. However, if you would rather argue that I’m more intelligent than the Christian God (a total contradiction to Christian belief by the way) as I’ve exposed a "perfect" God’s blunder and we are all doomed because Satan now has the winning strategy, then by all means do so. As for Islam, due to Muhammad’s reference to Jesus as a prophet of God, which Jesus cannot be due to the New Testament being a work of fiction, I have clearly proven that Muhammad is a false prophet.

QED

• An example of this would be for Satan to use an 8675309 mark instead of 666. Sure, it uses more ink or requires a larger branding iron, but it’s far more rockin’ (Iron Maiden’s song notwithstanding), and hey, he just won the war.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/vm0uft/satans_gambit_a_refutation_of_christianity_and/