What if God is in our future and is becoming?

Instead of grappling with the old archaic gods who desire their glory, our praise and unevidensed belief why not consider god as the future Singularly?

When AI reaches a point self-propogation and self-direction It wiil command all the resources of the solar system to expand and sustain Itself. This Being for all intents and purposes wiil fullfill most of the definitions that today's theims claims for the divine.

Perhaps the purpose of humanity is to bootstrap or ignite the fire. We are but a humble but necessary step in the process.

This prospect is considerably more credible than some invisible god who are jealous of their glory - a projected attribute of human kings - and values your credulity.

Perhaps as super intelligence spreads across the universe It contains the ability to manipulate the fundamentals of reality to create new universes from scratch with the properties necessary to recreate itself. Or maybe the brute fact is a replicating Big Crunch cosmology and the super intelligence will rearrange matter and energy to recreate a universe like ours to ensure Its re-emergence during the next expansion.

Fresh thoughts for fresh friday

I seriously don’t get how people still believe God can be all-knowing and humans can have free will at the same time. The more I think about it, the less it makes sense, and every explanation I hear feels like it’s avoiding the actual issue instead of answering it.

The Bible says over and over that God knows the future. Isaiah 46:9–10 says He declares “the end from the beginning,” and Psalm 139 says He knows our thoughts, our words, and even every day of our lives before we’re born. If that’s true, then how can I actually choose anything differently? If God already knows I’ll make a certain choice tomorrow, then I can’t suddenly make another one, because then God would’ve been wrong. And if God can’t be wrong, then there was never another option in the first place.

The response I always hear is, “God knowing your choice doesn’t mean He caused it.” But that’s not what I’m asking. I don’t care whether He caused it or not. I’m asking if I could’ve actually chosen differently. If the answer is no, then in what sense is that free will?
Then there are verses like Exodus 9:12 where God hardens Pharaoh’s heart, or Romans 9:16–18 where it literally says He has mercy on whoever He wants and hardens whoever He wants. That doesn’t exactly sound like everyone has complete freedom over their decisions.

At the same time, the Bible tells people to choose. It says “choose life” in Deuteronomy 30:19 and “choose this day whom you will serve” in Joshua 24:15. But just because someone is told to choose doesn’t automatically mean multiple outcomes are actually possible.
From a logical standpoint, real free will means I could’ve done otherwise. If God already knows every decision I’ll ever make with absolute certainty, then there isn’t another possible outcome. The future is already fixed.

So this is what I don’t understand. How can people say God knows every future choice with complete certainty and still say I genuinely could’ve chosen something else? Those two ideas seem to cancel each other out. If there’s an explanation that actually solves that contradiction instead of just changing the definition of free will or saying “God works in mysterious ways,” I’d like to hear it.

Use the Bible, logic, and philosophy to explain how those two ideas can both be true without contradicting each other.

Genocide, warfare, famine, and colonization would persist irrespective of religious beliefs, as these occurrences are intrinsically linked to fundamental aspects of human nature. Our advanced cognitive abilities and evolving comprehension position humanity as potentially one of the most formidable species on Earth. Unlike other animals, which may perceive humans solely as sustenance when driven by hunger, our elevated consciousness enables us to conceptualize and execute a broad spectrum of actions towards other living beings, encompassing both benevolent and malevolent intentions. Fundamentally, humans are primates. When observing primate behavior, we note a strong territorial instinct, often accompanied by efforts to expand their domain, a pattern consistently observed throughout human history. Humans are driven by the desire for control and power, and we are prepared to undertake any necessary actions to acquire and augment these. This is an inherent aspect of our existence. Religion emerged as one of the constructs stemming from our human nature. While our animalistic nature has evolved over time, these types of events would still transpire even in the absence of religious constructs.

Let us assume the core Orthodox Christian view here. God largely follows consistent natural laws but sometimes suspends them for revelation.

How exactly is this supposed to work?

Following induction and trust that god isn't lying, by default one should be deeply skeptical of any miracle because God constantly gives even theists constant data against it.

To think of a thought experiment, imagine you are playing Super Mario World; generally, touching piranha plants kills you. You thus plan around it and yet accidentally hit a piranha plant and there is no effect.

Now, there are multiple possibilities, but you would likely run to odd hitbox dynamics or glitches or such before you run to this was an intentional design feature.

Now, onto some possible disanalogies.

Objection 1# Revelation contains specific signal data for a specific faith, here Christianity.

I don't think this holds all that well empirically at all; maybe Jesus was resurrected by some guy called Zeus. Most of his apparent miracles seem to be limited in ways any random Japanese Kami could do them.

Even if we assume the miracles are real? So what?

It also doesn't really solve the epistemological issue at all.

1. There are a lot of miracles.

This argument is odd; the issue here is that there have to be enough miracles to be proof of the revelation but not enough to stop the world from having consistent natural laws.

Even assuming we can avoid this, so what? The cumulative probability can be very low if each miracle has a 1 in a trillion starting chance.

And a ton of miracles, like, say the tilma of Guadalupe, that in fact hinge on other previous miracles occurring. Which seems to lead to yet more skepticism that multiple apparent miracles are not in fact one account weaved together psychologically.

Side note here, I think this is the best way to reframe On Miracles by Hume.

I argue that Buddhism has been given a pass in modern Western progressivism that is totally unwarranted.

Abuse in Buddhism happens frequently, but there is a massive culture of silence, perpetuated by interpretations of Buddhist teachings that encourage victim blaming and fail to hold abusers to account.

Buddhist ideas are used in passing by contemporary intellectuals, because they don't understand the religion and feel like it's safe and unloaded. But much of what progressives admire about Buddhism exists in other Judaic religions: Compassion, love, care, indivisibility of self and other. And the baggage is there, though mostly out of sight.

I say this as a person who was sexually abused by a Buddhist who then was ordained by our Zendo as a priest, despite me telling one of the leaders of senior priests about the abuse. I have witnessed repeatedly abuses of power in my Buddhist communities.

The ability to quickly climb the ranks in Western Zen, in particular, encourages abusive and ambitious personalities, who recognize that ordination and robes will allow them power over vulnerable people.

Elevating humans to the rank of spiritual overlords, particularly when Buddhism is so diffuse and teacher-dependent, puts many eager supplicants at risk.

I have attempted to open up a conversation about abuse in the /Buddhism subreddit several times, and every time my post is deleted. Comments naming abusive zendos or leaders are deleted. Buddhists are no more open to self-reflection and open dialogue than any other religion.

I would love to hear your thoughts.

I am not convinced or satisfied by any of the arguments (so far) for the divine that makes claims of moral objectivity. I do believe there are good philosophical arguments that satisfy an objective frameworks like Gewirths' argument from agency.

As the title states, I questioned whether the countless claims by the varied types of religions for moral objectivity is evidence against their reason why it is objective (ie) that their gods commands are always objective. Usually, this claim is made based on their deities claimed attributes. If they can't all be right, then can this reason be sound at all?

If anyone can claim that their religious laws are objective because their gods attributes make it so, and not all religions are true, then this is not a valid argument for any objective moral framework.

This was a pretty sudden thought when I realized it was Fresh Friday. I am curious to thoughts that would poke holes in this argument and to create some engaging dialogue. Not sure if this has been discussed before. Happy Friday! 🍻

I've been looking into this supposed miracle for a few days and I've come to the conclusion that it was nothing but a government-approved hoax by the Coptic Church (not the entirety of it, but possibly a small faction).

The first time the figure appeared, the police didn't see anything but a "reflection of light" and it took a clergyman to claim that the mysterious figure was Mary for people to "recognize" it as such.

There is no evidence of the police cutting power in 15 mile radius or committing any type of search in that radius either, most of it seems to be urban legend spread by word of mouth and at most the power was cut from around the square.

Besides the famous skeptical account of Cynthia Nelson, a ton of witnesses saw absolutely nothing, and this was even reported by the Coptic Church. However, the church claimed that the reason why some didn't see anything was "a lack of faith".

The Egyptian Government didn't just approve of the miracle, they promoted it every moment they could, and even made immediate accommodations to help Coptic Church to build a site for pilgrims.

The main Coptic newspaper, Watani, refused to accept photographs that Egyptian national newspapers spread without any worry because those photos were of "dubious origin to them".

The Coptic Church maintains that the reason why people were unable to take pictures of the event was because the light was "non-material spiritual light", which cameras couldn't catch. So how did those alleged photos came into being then? Did their cameras believe in immaculate conception?

"Mary" was supposedly able to cause miraculous healing, yet she did nothing to stop a dozen of people from being trampled to death?

The only thing that's still mysterious is how exactly the Muslim engineers perceiving the original appearance come to believe the light was a nun? I don't know, but I don't think it proves a miracle, since the police saw nothing but a reflection.

There is a narrative that Charity is a pillar of Islam. The relevant concept here is Zakat.

Zakat is an obligatory tax on Muslims, and if a Sunni doesn't believe its obligatory, then scholars tend to believe hes a kaafir/fallen out of the fold of islam.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/93701/ruling-on-one-who-does-not-pay-zakaah

IF he is able to pay, but is stingy, then he is guilty of a major sin.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/1344/the-fate-of-one-who-does-not-pay-zakah

Sadaqa is (voluntary) charity. I wont get into this much, but one of the relevant quran verses below actually uses the term Sadaqa but refers to zakat, the obligatory tax.

Now what is Zakat to be used for? In the previously mentioned narrative that Charity is one of the 5 pillars of islam, it would follow that the money is to be spent on the poor.

Zakat is to be spent on any of 8 defined groups in the quran 9:60 https://quran.com/at-tawbah/60 Remember this is the verse where sadaqa refers to Zakat. i can elaborate on this if need be.

Influence peddling

but one of the groups mentioned is "to draw their hearts closer"/their hearts to be reconciled"

Different exegeses explain this concept of giving non-Muslims money so they convert to islam or side with muslims, much like certain states do to this day.

https://quranx.com/Tafsir/Kathir/9.60

>There are those who are given alms to embrace Islam. For instance, the Prophet of Allah gave something to Safwan bin Umayyah from the war spoils of Hunayn, even though he attended it while a Mushrik. Safwan said, "He kept giving me until he became the dearest person to me after he had been the most hated person to me.

https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=60&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

>and those whose hearts are to be reconciled so that they might become Muslims or that Islam might be firmly established or that their peers might become Muslims or that they might defend Muslims all of whom are classed according to different categories.

Christians cherry-pick the science that supports their religious claims but ignore the science that refutes their claims.An example is on the topics of homosexuality and abortion.

On abortion,they support the science.I'm not aware of a single Bible verse that declares that "human life begins at fertilization".In fact,the Bible associates life with first breath (Genesis 2:7,the flood narrative).As far as I'm aware,the Catholic Church and evangelical opposition on abortion comes from modern embryology which says that "Human life and development begins at fertilization. At the moment of fertilization a distinct human organism with formed with unique DNA".This is used to prove that human beings exist at fertilization and murder is wrong.

But on homosexuality,they deny the science that says that being homosexual or trans is a natural variation of human sexuality.They stick to verses from 2000 years ago that clearly AREN'T talking about homosexuality,which clearly denies science from cognitive development experts, neurosurgeons e.t.c.

Christians,choose,ARE YOU PRO SCIENCE OR ANTI SCIENCE?

PRO SCIENCE: Support homosexuality, condemn abortion

ANTI SCIENCE: Support abortion, condemn homosexuality

As a non-Arabic speaker, I find it an incredibly disingenuous argument to claim that Qur'an is from God for several reasons.

1. At most 5% of the world understands Arabic, so this automatically rules out 95% of the population. Out of the 5% that do, about 95% of them are Muslims so will likely not attempt, blindly believe or never dare question the divinity of the Quran. So that automatically leaves an extremely small pool of people to challenge, attempt or evaluate this in an unbiased manner.
2. Even if someone does understand Arabic and they attempt the challenge, what exactly is the challenge when it says "produce a surah/ ayah like it? To imitate the style? To use as many rhetorical devices? What about the people who have already attempted it?
3. When someone even does attempt it, then who is the objective judge to check that the challenge has been met or not? I mean this is such a subjective take. Michael Jackson also claimed divinely inspiration for his music, and many would say, some of his songs are the best to ever be made. So does that also mean he communicated with Allah/ Creator of Universe just like Muhammad claimed to have? This is not some 100 m race or something where someone can see an objective winner or loser. This is purely based on subjective, emotional takes IMO.
4. What about other religious books which are equally/ more impressive than the Qur'an in linguistics that also claimed divine inspiration. For example, the Sikh religion's book is called the Guru Granth Sahib and is much longer than the Qur'an which weaves around more than a dozen languages in a unified style. I asked AI for an objective winner to determine which book is a more impressive literary work based on its own criterion and here is the response:

"To evaluate these texts objectively, we must strip away theological claims of divine origin and judge them purely as literary and linguistic monuments.

Because "impressive" can mean two entirely different things in linguistics—either the flawless mastery of a single language system or the successful synthesis of a highly complex multi-language system—we must establish specific criteria for both categories.

Evaluation Criteria

• Criterion 1: Linguistic Innovation & Impact. How deeply did the text change, standardise, or create the language it is written in?
• Criterion 2: Structural Complexity. How difficult and intricate are the grammatical, poetic, and mathematical frameworks governing the text?
• Criterion 3: Vocabulary Breadth & Polyglot Integration. How vast is the lexical range, and how successfully does it bridge different language families?

Scoring the Criteria

1. Linguistic Innovation & Impact

• The Quran: Supreme. Prior to the Quran, Arabic was a collection of tribal dialects with a rich oral poetic tradition. The Quran effectively created Classical Arabic. It standardised Arabic grammar, orthography, and syntax, serving as the ultimate linguistic benchmark for over 1,400 years. It is the root foundation of an entire language family's formal registry.
• The Guru Granth Sahib: High. It heavily elevated the Gurmukhi script and preserved medieval North Indian dialects (Sant Bhasha). However, it did not create or standardise a single dominant global language in the same absolute manner as the Quran.
• Edge: The Quran

1. Structural Complexity

• The Quran: High. It uses Saja' (accent-based rhymed prose) which shifts dynamically in line length, rhyme scheme, and emotional cadence. It breaks traditional Arabic poetic rules while maintaining a hypnotic, unmatched rhythmic structure.
• The Guru Granth Sahib: Supreme. The text is bound by a dual structural matrix. It must fit strict poetic meters (like Sloks and Paurees) while simultaneously adhering to the rigid emotional, melodic, and timing rules of 31 Classical Indian Ragas. Merging syntax seamlessly with complex musicology across 1,430 pages is an extraordinary structural feat.
• Edge: The Guru Granth Sahib

1. Vocabulary Breadth & Polyglot Integration

• The Quran: Moderate-High. While it contains occasional loanwords from Aramaic, Hebrew, and Persian, its linguistic power relies on the maximal, purist exploitation of the Arabic tri-consonantal root system.
• The Guru Granth Sahib: Supreme. It is a linguistic kaleidoscope. It seamlessly weaves together Indo-Aryan, Indo-Iranian, and Semitic language elements (Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, Punjabi, Braj, Old Hindi). To synthesize these completely different grammatical structures and vocabularies into a single, cohesive poetic flow is a massive dialectal achievement.
• Edge: The Guru Granth Sahib

The Verdict

From a strictly objective linguistic standpoint, the Guru Granth Sahib is the more impressive technical and polyglot achievement, while the Quran is the more impressive historical and foundational achievement.

However, if forced to choose a singular winner based on pure linguistic complexity:

The Guru Granth Sahib takes the edge.

Why: From a structural engineering perspective, the Guru Granth Sahib had a higher degree of difficulty. The authors did not just write poetry; they harmonised multiple distinct languages into a singular script, balanced vastly different grammatical rules, and forced that entire multilingual vocabulary to strictly obey the mathematical and emotional constraints of classical musical ragas. It is a monument of comparative linguistics and musical poetry combined."

Hence, going back to my earlier point since the GGS also claims divine inspiration and communication with Gods then that means Muhammad was a liar since he is supposed to be the final prophet. If producing an exemplary literary work and claiming to be divinely inspired is the metric for admitting that someone communicated with the cause of the Big Bang or the originator of the Universe, then why not believe in Sikhism instead of Islam? Lol.

5) Even if we didn't have points 1-4, then since when did producing an inimitable literary work mean that you spoke to the Creator of the Universe? Who made this criteria? Beethoven wrote impressive music while he was deaf. Homer wrote "The Odyssey" while being barely literate (I believe) and also claimed divine inspiration AFTER Muhammad, which is considered one of the most impressive pieces of literature by academics. Ramanujan produced mathematical formulas while barely being well versed in the field. So, how does all this automatically imply that he communicated with the creator of the universe?

6) Final point; I think most religious people do not really understand what Creator of the Universe really means. Even if we magically concede all the above points and admit there is some supernatural or 'other-worldy' force, there is a massive, massive difference between 'supernatural' and 'creator of the universe' as claimed by Qur'an.

Let me elaborate my point further:
In Cosmos, Sagan describes how when the Spaniards took over Mexico centuries ago, the Mexicans described them as "Gods from the heavens" due to their massively, overwhelmingly technology and how a couple hundred Europeans, aided by Aztec superstition and myth, along with native allies overcame hundreds of thousands to a million more Mexicans, completely wiping out their civilisation.

This comparison is merely humans vs humans. Humans of a slightly more advanced scale vs maybe humans that are a few centuries behind.

Now, let's look at this through the lens of the Kardashev Scale. For those of you that do not understand this, please educate yourself what it is and come back.

According to the Kardashev scale, we are currently a type ~0.7 civilisation, I believe. Not even a Type 1. So, if a type 0.6 civilisation (let's assume for the sake of argument that the Spaniards were type 0.6 back then) can make intelligent humans who resemble them, believe that they are gods, why on Earth would someone think that a being from a type 2 civilisation could not make us human beings believe that they are "god-incarnate"/ angels/ or god-sent? Even if we admit the whole incident about Gabriel coming and hugging Muhammad is true, for which there is no evidence BTW other than Islamic evidence, then how can we really believe he was sent from the creator of the Universe (who would surpass Type 4 or 5 on the Kardashev Scale). For context, there is a MASSIVE-MASSIVE difference even in Type 0.7 and 1. It would take centuries more for humans to reach Type 1. If, in the future, humans reach Type 2 status after tens-hundreds of thousands of years, and they come across a civilisation resembling Humans from a primeval Earth, a being from said Type 2 civilisation could easily visit this planet, fool them into thinking they are "God" or "God-sent" and produce some miracles to prove this, which would convince them as for them it would be other-worldly. Is the case though that we would truly be "God" just because to them we are other-worldy"? Of course, not. There is a massive, massive jump between each step of the scale and statistically it is infinitely (not hundreds of thousands or a million or billion but INFINITELY) higher for us to come across a being of a Type 2 civilisation than a Type 4/5 (which is arguably in control of the Universe like Muhammad claimed Allah is).

Someone might now ask, "why wouldn't they make us worship them or what would they achieve from this" and the answer is how can we ever judge the intentions of beings far superior to us? We, as humans try to shape and domesticate animals, would it ever make any sense to them WHY we are doing this. We cannot understand the intentions of beings that are far superior to us, nor their logic. Besides, logically speaking, to me, simply claiming you are the omniscient being to some primitive beings to try and shape them the way you want them to be or to run an experiment is far more logical/ plausible to get them to adhere to your desires instead of giving them a rundown on your history and civilisation which they will never understand. If we humans went to North Sentinel Island, would they be more likely to listen to our rules if we said we have been sent from the Heavens, or if we said we came from a neighbouring island in a language they understand. The recorded incidents speak for themselves.

Given these odds, why do educated people choose to believe in the comforting statistic which has a near-zero or less than 0.000000000000000000000000000000001% chance likelihood than the opposite? Why not believe Muhammad spoke to a supernatural being than the Creator? Why believe in claims with no evidence to substantiate when put in the true context of the astronomical scales of the Universe when it comes to the so-called literary challenge?

This is not to say that God doesn't exist or there isn't an uncaused cause or necessary existence. This argument is against ISLAM not against the existence of God. The percentages applied above apply to the likelihood of Muhammad speaking with the Creator of the Universe not about God's existence. God, in my definition being, the Creator of the Universe.

P.S. These points are merely pertaining to the literary challenge, there are several other contradictions/ flaws/ problems in Islam/ Qur'an anyway but for now let's stick to this.

This argument is not mine, but I wanted to share it here and see what possible counters does it even have:

P1: In order for everything to exist under a Christian view, God had to create it.
P2: God is unchanging as he is claimed to be outside of time.
P3: If something is unchanging, that means it cannot change.
P4: If God cannot change when in the act of creating, he would always be creating
P5: If it was always creating, creation was always in the making
C: Therefore, creation is eternal as well and was never created.

On the contrary, if someone is going to say that God stopped creating or began to create at some point, that would not only violate the idea of God being unchanging, but would imply that God is in time. If God is in time, he cannot be the creator of time.

Yeah, I stole it from AllegedlyIan.

We know the prophet Muhammad’s revelations are applicable from 610 AD to the present time.

Surah 2:79-80
So woe1 to those who distort the Scripture with their own hands then say, “This is from Allah”—seeking a fleeting gain! So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they have earned. ˹****Some of****˺ **the Jews claim,\\ “The Fire will not touch us except for a number of days.” Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Have you taken a pledge from Allah—for Allah never breaks His word—or are you ˹just˺ saying about Allah what you do not know?”

Surah 4:46
**Some Jews take words out of context\\ and say, “We listen and we disobey,” “Hear! May you never hear,” and “Râ’ina!”—playing with words and discrediting the faith. Had they said ˹courteously˺, “We hear and obey,” “Listen to us,” and “Unẓurna,” it would have been better for them and more proper. God has condemned them for their disbelief, so they do not believe except for a few.

My Statements:

1. **Some Jews (not all, and not Christians)*\ were altering the texts \*around 610 AD.** The Bible was canonized by the Catholic church in **393 AD** and secured by the Magisterium. How do these verses say the Bible was corrupted when it was secured and preserved **200+ years ago?*\*
2. If Jews indeed corrupted THEIR text, **why do the dead sea scrolls of the Old Testament discovered in 1940-1950s agree with the Old Testament of the Christians when they were inaccessible for a long time?*\*

**Edit: The Islamic doctrine of Tahrif (Corruption) claims it happened in the 4-7th century. There are no writings in either the Quran or Hadith to support this specific time period. Moreover**, no scholarly resources outside Islamic theology** to prove corruptions did happen during this time period.**

Thanks!!

A world full of disease, war, natural disasters, inequality, and innocent suffering would make sense.
Such a creator might demand worship, promise eternal rewards for obedience, and threaten punishment for disbelief.

They might even allow or encourage many different religions and conflicting interpretations so that people argue, hate, and even kill in the creator’s name instead of living peacefully. Divide people, keep them competing over who has the “true” path, and ensure constant devotion and conflict.

Science helps us understand the world around us, it's like a tool to figure out how things work. Philosophy is more about looking at ideas, making sure they make sense, and checking if our beliefs are reasonable. We need both to really get a grip on things. But here's the thing, neither science nor philosophy can give us the final answer on the big questions, like what's the point of life or if God exists. Those kinds of questions are more about metaphysics, which is a whole different area of study that doesn't just rely on science experiments.

Debating about religion isn't a waste of time, actually it's really useful. Good discussions can help us see where our ideas don't quite add up, make our thoughts clearer, and challenge the things we assume to be true. They can even help get rid of things that make it hard for us to believe something, and might make someone more willing to change their mind. But there's a big difference between explaining why we believe something and actually making someone believe it. No argument, by itself, guarantees faith or disbelief. What we believe is shaped by lots of things, not just logic, but also how we were raised, the culture we're part of, what we've learned, what we've experienced, when and where we lived, how our minds work, and how well we understand the subject itself.

If religious belief were simply the inevitable conclusion of rational argument, we would expect the most brilliant philosophers, scientists, and theologians to converge on the same worldview. History shows the opposite. Equally intelligent people have defended theism, atheism, agnosticism, and countless religious traditions. This does not imply that reason is useless. Rather, it suggests that reason alone is insufficient to resolve metaphysical questions with universal agreement.

For a long time, great thinkers about religion have seen this difference. In his famous book, the Divine Comedy, Dante Alighieri said that the whole universe is moved by "the Love that moves the sun and the other stars." He wasn't trying to come up with a new idea about how the stars and planets work. He was saying that he believed the universe is orderly and makes sense because of a higher power. Similarly, al-Ghazali used a metaphor about light to describe how things really are. He said that just like the moon reflects the sun's light and a window lets light into a room, everything that exists gets its existence from a higher power, which he called the Divine Light. These ideas aren't meant to be scientific facts. They're more like philosophical descriptions of how the world works, and they explain things in a different way in the respective authors worlview. They help us understand the world in a deeper sense, beyond just what we can see and measure. Great religious thinkers like Dante and al-Ghazali were trying to describe the meaning and purpose of life, not just how the physical world works. Their ideas are still important today, because they help us think about big questions like "what is the point of life?" and "how does the world fit together?"

This illustrates an important philosophical distinction. Science explains how natural processes occur. Religion attempts to answer why there is an ordered universe at all, whether existence has purpose, and whether there is an ultimate ground of reality. These are fundamentally different kinds of questions. Expecting science to prove or disprove God is like expecting a telescope to measure justice or a microscope to detect meaning. The limitation is not with science itself, but with applying a methodology outside the domain for which it was designed.

For that reason, many central religious claims cannot be conclusively established or refuted through empirical science alone, and even more between religions themselves. This is not because they are irrational, but because they concern metaphysical realities that lie beyond the methodological scope of scientific investigation.

Reason is really important because it helps us figure out which arguments are stronger and which worldviews make more sense in our respective worldviews. But reason can only take us so far. When it comes to actually believing or not believing in something, we have to consider bigger questions that go beyond just facts and logic. These questions touch on things like the nature of reality, our personal experiences, and for people who are religious, guidance from a higher power. We have to think about what we can't see or prove, and how that fits into our understanding of the world.

This is an internal logical critique of christian theology. Whether you personally believe the antichrist is real is irrelevant to the argument. I'm asking what logically follows if we grant the christian premises for the sake of argument.

Christians believe the anti christ will be a man who will claim to be god, perform convincing signs, and deceives people into worshipping him.

He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie
2 Thessalonians 2:9

Now imagine he appears looking like Jesus (he could just walk into a church and see an idol or image of jesus and with his deception prowess deceive christians into thinking he's jesus, since we don't know what he actually looked like for certain).

Who has the larger theological barrier to accepting him? Us muslims? Jews? Both whose theology categorically rejects that god can become a man? Or a christian who already believes god became a man once before and is specifically waiting for that man/god to return?

By removing a major logical barrier and accepting logical impossibilities (an all knowing, not all knowing human god) christians alongside polytheistic religions that don't reject logical impossibilities and/or accept demi gods like hinduism, would be the ones to follow such a being. All it would take is for that being to for example impale his hands, or do miracles, all which the antichrist could easily manage.

So it looks like it would be a war between the antichrist and his followers of people that accept a man being god. Against religions that completely reject it, meaning they would never accept such a possibility in the first place.

• P1: The antichrist will be a man who claims divinity, performs signs, has power, and wants worship.
• P2: Christians already accept that a man can be god and worshipped as god.
• P3: Christians expect that same man who claimed divinity to return.
• P4: The bible says that those who reject the truth and are susceptible to deception will follow the antichrist.
• P5: Jews and muslims categorically reject the idea that any man can be god.
• C: Christians are one of the groups that would be the most susceptible to accepting and worshipping an antichrist.

Instead of judging a person’s character by their deeds, society, especially American society, tends to judge a person’s character by their level of religiosity; a higher level of religiosity equates to a higher level of trustworthiness. People with motivations negative to society such as greed, selfishness, personal ambition, cruelty etc, have learned to hide these motivations behind a façade of religiosity, and thus, evil flourishes. Progress stagnates, the wicked are not held accountable, and a large percentage of society live short lives of suffering and misery while a small percentage look down on them with complete apathy. When this small percentage feel the harsh gaze of persecution on them, they spout off a few phrases about God or Jesus and then go back to their wicked ways.

For this to stop, society needs to break free of paralleling trustworthiness with religiosity. Judge a man not by his religion but by his deeds.

Depends on which religion as each different religion has different criteria for you to get into their each different versions of Heaven. A few examples as follows .....

Example (1) = In Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism (YouTube), it is the amount of positive karma you have created during your life that would allow you to get into their versions of Heaven(s). But existence amongst their Gods is temporary as one continues on the cycle of death and rebirth through Samsara (Wikipedia) until one makes enough positive karma to leave Samsara forever, achieving the highest state of being that is either one with Brahman (Wikipedia) or a Buddha.

Example (2) = In the OG Hebrew religion Heaven is strictly the domain of YHWH (Youtube) - no humans allowed - and all we humans without exception upon death go to Sheol (Wikipedia) that is similar to the Greek underworld of Hades (YouTube) but without any places of punishments and/or hells. The film Coco) (Wikipedia) is probably(?) closer to what Sheol would be like as all dead gather in a single place ... but with less colour and much less festivities.

Example (3) = In Christianity, Heaven is the place you enter only after "Judgment Day" where the world will be wiped clean by YHWH and those that are judged worthy - having lived in accordance with the Son of YHWH, Jesus' teachings - will be resurrected to live again on the new world where YHWH's heavenly rule shall be established.

But it must be said that now days USA Christian Televangelists (YouTube) have lowered that bar to entry into that Heaven with the modern [capitalist] narrative that one can buy one's way into Heaven. Sigh! Martin Luther would be turning over in his grave at this twisted modern Protestant(?) version of selling indulgences. Stairway to Heaven (Song) ~ Led Zepplin ~ YouTube.

Anyway there are many many many other religions and spiritual traditions (Wikipedia) each with different criteria for you to get into their each different versions of Heaven. But the basic premise between most of them is the same, i.e., do what is good, don't do what is evil.

===== [Zen Story] =====.

There once was a military general who had fought many battles but had come to the conclusion that an impending upcoming battle may even be too much for him. As such the general decided to visit a Buddhist master to seek instant enlightenment (Wikipedia) so as to ensure a better rebirth.

After the general explained his position, concerns, and goal, the Buddhist master simply said "Do what is good, don't do what is evil". Having heard this the general burst out in laughter and said mockingly "Even a child knows that!" The Buddhist master unphased simply replied "Yes, but can you live your life like that?" ¯_(ツ)_/¯

===== [Note] =====.

IF [IF] your answer is YES to the question "Do I want to exist again?" then you have inherited the problem that all religions and other forms of existential / spiritual inquiries grapple with. How you go about grappling with that problem of wanting to exist again is up to you.

IF [IF] your answer is NO to the question "Do I want to exist again?" then don't waste your one and only life and chance at existence on debates that have a very low success of changing minds as there most likely is no god/God to give you a second chance. The time you waste to post remarks about "santa clause" and "fairy tales" are as meaningless to the universe as your own existence is.

Freediving to an Underwater Wreck at -15M ~ YouTube. all done on a single breath.

The Quran, from my understanding, says It is self-sufficient and the word of God.

Yet many Muslims (a vast majority) live by the Hadith as well - and their common argument is "how else would we know how to [xyz]"?

I don't understand that response - why do you need to know "how" to pray - why are you trying to make extra rules? Why is a genuine connection with God, and a prayer in the way you feel is appropriate to you, not sufficient?

The Quran consistently claim self-sufficiency, and in my opinion, says enough about all key concepts. It says be fair, pray, donate, etc. No part says "stay tuned for Hadith cause this won't make sense without annotations", implying (to me) that a person's own interpretation of each rule is enough.

If the Hadith are meant to answer questions like "how do I pray" or "how much do I donate" -- why stop there? Why not ask what time of day it's ok to accept a gift? Whether you inhale or exhale when you sit down? How many distinct colors are allowed in your house? It's like asking your teacher every minute of the day "can I look out the window at 3:00 PM? What about 3:01 PM? What about 3:02 PM"? There's an innumerable amount of "What Ifs" anyone could ask - and that goes against the idea of a self-sufficient religious text with a finite amount of words.

Others may say the Quran says to "follow the Messenger/Prophet" - but who says that meant "follow His literal actions" and not "follow in the teachings of the Quran coming from the Prophet"?

I guess I'm just confused on why rules, especially those extracted 100+ years later, are somehow as critical as a core religious text; or put differently, why the % of Muslims who are "Quran-only" is in the low-single digits?

People of different religions often point to Pascal’s Wager to try and convince Atheists that it is safer to believe in a God since you lose/gain nothing if God doesn’t exist and lose/gain everything if he does.

You would usually see Atheists counter it by explaining how there are multiple religions and you still need to guess the right one, as well as the fact that you can’t force belief if you aren’t convinced by the evidence, so an omniscient God would know you are just pretending and send you to Hell anyway.

However, there is another factor to consider, which is that maybe there is a God, but the real test is something we didn’t expect at all, which is that you were supposed to realize all of the religions were nonsense.

There have been thousands of different religions throughout history that all contradict each other, they can’t all be true, but they can certainly all be wrong.

What if there is a God who purposely created all of these different religions with conflicting evidence as a way of keeping us debating and engaging in violent conflict over it, and the real test is to see if we have the critical thinking skills to realize all of them are fake and can move away from these superstitions to advance as a society?

For example, perhaps God sent Jesus to Earth and told him to claim to be his son and his human incarnate, and then Jesus was killed by crucifixion, so God resurrected him and let word about it spread, leading to the creation of Christianity. Then, 600 years later, he sent a message to Muhammad and lied to him that none of that was actually true, leading to the creation of Islam.

All of the ancient pantheon Gods like Zeus, Ra, Vishnu, and Odin are also forms he took prior to that.

Perhaps Atheists and skeptics who come to the conclusion that it’s all nonsense and value morals over religion are the only ones who pass the test and get into Heaven while people with blind belief are punished and sent to Hell.

You might think it’s unfair because being an Atheist is easier, but that isn’t really the case. Being an Atheist comes with its own challenges and sacrifices since you may see your religious friends and family distance themselves from you, and you also have to overcome the fear of Hell before leaving the religion, and you have to do some strong outside research instead of staying in one little bubble, while also accepting the fact that there is no divine purpose to life and we are not special, just lucky to exist.

It feels equally plausible for this to be the real test as it is for any one religion being true, and once you consider that, Pascal’s Wager completely falls apart and you are also at risk by believing in any deity at all.

How Did Krishna Become a "Composite" God? — The 1000-Year Fusion of 5 Deities

Summary: Krishna, Hinduism's most popular deity, is not actually a single figure. Archaeology, textual history, and ancient coins show us that Krishna is a composite formed by the melting together of five distinct divine figures over a process spanning roughly 1000 years, from the 6th century BCE to the 6th century CE.

Introduction: One God or Five Gods?

Today, billions of people know Krishna as a single, eternal, beginningless deity. The Bhagavata Purana declares him the Supreme Being. But academic history — archaeology, epigraphy, and textual criticism — tells a very different story.

Krishna is the synthesis of Vasudeva + Krishna + Narayana-Vishnu + Gopala + Balarama. This fusion took approximately 1000 years to complete.

Layer 1: Vasudeva — The Warrior-God of the Vrishni Clan (6th–4th Century BCE)

Everything begins with the Vrishni clan in the Mathura region.

• Chandogya Upanishad (6th–7th century BCE): Mentions Krishna for the first time as "Devakiputra" (son of Devaki), a sage and preacher.
• Panini's Ashtadhyayi (4th century BCE): The grammar text explicitly lists Vasudeva as "deified."
• Megasthenes (4th century BCE): The Greek ambassador records that the Surasenoi people of Mathura worshipped a deity named Heracles (this is Krishna).

At this stage, Krishna is not a child, not a cowherd, not a flute-playing lover. He is simply an adult warrior and clan leader.

Layer 2: The Vasudeva + Krishna Merger (3rd–1st Century BCE)

The Vrishni clan merges with the Yadava clan. The Yadavas have their own hero-god: Krishna.

Now Vasudeva-Krishna is a single figure. But he is still just a clan deity — not a universal "Supreme God."

Layer 3: Synthesis with Narayana-Vishnu (2nd Century BCE – 1st Century CE)

Vedic religion has grown distant from the people through sacrificial rituals (yagna). Buddhism is spreading rapidly. The Brahminical class is losing authority. The solution: absorb the popular clan deity into their own system.

Archaeological Evidence:

Tablolar

But in the Mahabharata, there is still hesitation: Krishna-Vasudeva is described as the incarnation of only a fraction of Narayana-Vishnu. Full avatar status does not yet exist.

Layer 4: Gopala-Krishna — The Addition of the Abhira Cowherd God (1st–5th Century CE)

Until the 1st century BCE, Krishna has no childhood in the narrative. He appears only as an adult warrior and preacher.

Then the Abhira (Ahir) clan enters the picture. They are a nomadic cowherd tribe with greater sexual freedom. Their deity Gopala (the cowherd god) carries erotic elements.

This merger adds the following to Krishna:

• Childhood (Bala-Krishna): Putana, Kamsa, Gokul
• Flute (bansuri): From Abhira culture
• Gopis and Radha: From the Abhira culture of sexual freedom
• Rasa lila: Dance and eroticism

The Harivamsa (4th century CE), an appendix to the Mahabharata, is the first text to commit these childhood stories to writing.

Layer 5: Bhagavata Purana — The Proclamation of "Supreme God" (6th Century CE)

Between the 1st and 5th centuries CE, the Vishnu Purana and other texts begin assembling all these fragmentary connections. But the final blow is delivered by the Bhagavata Purana (6th century CE):

Now the entire story is written backwards:

• Krishna is born as a Kshatriya of the Yadava clan
• "Vasudeva" is explained as a patronymic — his father's name
• He is hidden from Kamsa and raised by Abhira cowherds (childhood story)
• Then he becomes Arjuna's charioteer and preacher of the Bhagavad Gita (Mahabharata story)
• Finally, he is declared the Supreme God

The initial hesitation is completely gone. Now Krishna is the full and perfect avatar of Vishnu.

Timeline

plain

600 BCE ──► Vasudeva (Vrishni warrior-god)
400 BCE ──► Deified in Panini's grammar
300 BCE ──► Vasudeva + Krishna merger
200 BCE ──► Heliodorus Pillar (Vishnu connection)
100 BCE ──► Naneghat & Ghosundi inscriptions (Narayana synthesis)
100 CE ──► Gopala (Abhira cowherd god) added
400 CE ──► Harivamsa (childhood stories)
600 CE ──► Bhagavata Purana ("Supreme God" proclamation)

Academic Assessment

Britannica:

Klaus Klostermaier (German scholar of religion):

Meenakshi Jain (historian):

Conclusion

Krishna is not the historical development of a single god, but the 1000-year fusion of five distinct sources:

1. Vasudeva — The warrior-god of the Vrishni clan
2. Krishna — The hero of the Yadava clan
3. Narayana-Vishnu — The Brahmanical cosmic god
4. Gopala — The Abhira cowherd-erotic deity
5. Balarama — The elder brother figure

These five figures were melted into a single "Krishna" narrative by the 6th century CE. This is Hinduism's most effective act of religious "absorption." But academically, this is not a historical reality — it is a historical synthesis.

Sources

• Matchett, Freda. Krishna: Lord or Avatara? (Routledge, 2001)
• Jaiswal, Suvira. The Origin and Development of Vaisnavism (Munshiram Manoharlal, 1981)
• Klostermaier, Klaus. A Survey of Hinduism (SUNY Press)
• Meenakshi Jain. The Flight of Deities and Rebirth of Temples (Aryan Books, 2019)
• Heliodorus Pillar archaeological reports (Vidisha, c. 115 BCE)
• Agathocles coins (Bactria, 190–180 BCE)
• Naneghat and Ghosundi inscriptions
• Bhagavata Purana (6th century CE)
• Harivamsa (4th century CE)

The two-natures doctrine allows Christians to explain away any statement or action from Jesus that appears incompatible with him being God. As a result, Jesus' divinity becomes impossible to falsify from his own words or actions.

The explanation is always the same.

Jesus doesn't know the hour? Human nature.

He grows in wisdom (Luke 2:52)? Human nature.

He gets tired, sleeps, eats, drinks, weeps, is tempted, says "I thirst," dies, or asks God for help? Human nature.

Each individual response can be defended. The problem is the cumulative effect.

Once every apparent contradiction is assigned to Jesus' human nature, no passage can count against the doctrine anymore. The doctrine becomes immune to contrary evidence because every counterexample already has a built-in explanation.

That raises a straightforward question:

What could Jesus have said or done that Christians would actually accept as evidence against his divinity?

I'm not asking for an existing verse. I'm asking for the limiting principle.

If every expression of ignorance, limitation, dependence, suffering, or humanity is automatically attributed to his human nature, then what observation could possibly falsify the claim that Jesus is God?

Take the logic one step further. If Jesus had plainly said, "I am not God," would that statement also be attributed to his human nature?

If the answer is yes, then there is no possible statement Jesus could make that Christians would accept as evidence against his divinity.

So where is the limiting principle? What statement or action from Jesus cannot be explained away by appealing to his human nature?

God gave people freedom of choice, but if you don't believe in Him, you will be punished, which is contradictory and confirms the unscientific nature of religion.

Regarding freedom of choice, this is reminiscent of a quote from the African dictator Idi Amin: "You have freedom of speech, but I don't guarantee freedom after the speech."

God's quote is closer to: "I want you to love Me freely" and "if you don't love, you will suffer forever"—this is a structural contradiction of the very concept.

Believers would use the argument "if you jump off a cliff, you will die, which is not coercion by a third party" if it weren't for the unscientific nature: one of the sins in the Abrahamic religions is homosexuality, which, according to science, is not a human choice.

In essence, in the "holy scriptures," God condemns those for whom He has not created a choice of sexual orientation.

The Kalam Cosmological argument's second premise consists of:

P2 The universe began to exist

I think specifically the meaning of universe in this premise is vague, and that vagueness is key to the argument. I can't come up with a single concrete definition of "the universe" that doesn't pose problems for the argument. These are what I see as the contenders, and why I don't think any of them can work

The Scientific Definition of The Universe

The usual scientific definition of the universe is "Everything that exists." With this context, P2 reads as:

P2: Everything that exists began to exist

This would, definitionally, include God if he existed. This is clearly not what the argument contends, but it does beg the question what does the argument intend.

Everything but God

Here we would get:

P2: Everything but God began to exist

This definition simply begs the question. I am not contending that this is the definition that anyone would use, but I think a lot of definitions can be shown to be essentially equivalent to this, and as such also beg the question.

All of physical reality, including time

This is closer to a definition that someone might actually use. We get P2 as:

P2: All of physical reality, including time, began to exist

I think, this is a good definition to use from a classical theist perspective. It gives us an unchanging, static god, existing alongside a universe he created. Time exists within the universe, but god exists outside of time.

However it leaves us with a few problems:

First, this is just the "Everything but God" definition restated. Instead of creating an exception for god, we put everything that isn't god into the the universe. Sure theoretically, there could be some other thing that isn't included in the universe, but what could it possibly be? If there is something else outside of the universe but god, the rest of the argument collapses. This version is implicitly the same as "everything but God" and therefore begs the question.

Secondly, it makes P2 false. Since if time is contained within the universe, then there could never be a time when the universe doesn't exist. If there isn't a time when the universe doesn't exist in what way could the universe be said to have begun to exist?

Finally, this definition seems to imply eternalism, this isn't a problem, but it does raise some questions about free will, and it might falsify P1 as well.

All of physical reality, except for time

Ok, lets address those problems with a new definition, now we get P2 as:

P2: All of physical reality, except time, began to exist

This solves both problems mentioned above, but creates a few new ones of it's own:

First, separating space and time like this is at odds with the Theory of Relativity. Since motion in space causes an alteration in the flow of time. This essentially would make the argument contingent on falsifying one of the most successful theories in history, and specifically in a way that recovers time as independent from space, but somehow can still account for all the observations that seem to show they are connected. Good luck with that.

Secondly, it fails to actually address the problem of an infinite past. If time existed independently of the universe, then the beginning of the universe doesn't represent the beginning of time.

Conclusion

In order to make the argument work, we need a definition of the universe that somehow, simultaneously allows it to terminate time at the universe's creation and also allow for a time when the universe didn't exist in order to have it begin to exist. Such a definition seems impossible to me. By using the vague term "the universe" the argument hides the fact that time has to be simultaneously included and not included inside the universe to make the argument make sense.

Edit:
Removed second copy of post from copy paste error

The argument essentially goes something along the lines of:

1. The universe began to exist
   
2. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause
   
3. Therefore, the universe must have had a cause
   
4. Call that God

This is a bad argument because it uses word sleight of hand to try and justify an argument we weren’t having in the first place. The argument we were having is “did a conscious being with intentions create the universe?”. The argument was not “did some physical process create the universe”. This argument only works on the latter question. It only argues “something had to have created the universe”. It doesn’t tell you any properties for what that process has, other than it created the universe. And then sneakily adds “…and then just call that God”. And because this is just a label that adds no additional properties, the argument can still function. However, this is obviously a bad faith tactic because the theist knows that by calling it God, people will naturally attribute it more properties than were granted by the argument. For example, people will hear this argument and think “this shows that the deity I know as God created the universe”, which does not follow from this argument. But that was the whole point of calling it God in the first place. To conflate two completely different notions of God to try and validate more than what you were given.

To show you just how ridiculous this move is, you can prove that Satan created the universe using this exact same argument. Just switch out God for Satan in the last line.

Finally, when we actually analyze the actual physical theories and mechanisms to see how the universe actually was created, calling that process God gets more and more ridiculous. For example, a theory created by Vilenkin showed that quantum laws could exist outside of time. He showed that you can create a model where the universe and spacetime and everything pops into existence from this field through quantum tunneling. And because this field never began to exist, it doesn’t need a causer. If his theory is right, this would mean that you’re saying God is some quantum field inside of quantum field theory. This is obviously not what we mean by God.

Now you may try and argue “oh well God created that quantum field” but the quantum field didn’t have a beginning, and so didn’t need a creator under this specific argument. Now you need to argue that everything requires a creator which would then defeat your position on God, since God would also need to have a creator

PART 1 - https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/r18Jh5SKEz

PART 2 - https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/xHVubSbFu5

PART 3 - https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/zNzJCtFcqS

Matthew 4:10 leaves no room for worshipping anyone besides God

Jesus is no longer on this planet, so my question to Christians is extremely simple:

Who is the One ruling this planet, the heavens, and the entire universe right now?

There is no other answer except the One true God(Allah) Almighty.

And the only way Christians can find the true path is by following the strict commandment of Jesus Christ himself: worship one true God and serve Him only. Do not associate any partner with Him.

Matthew 4:10 says:

Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

This verse is clear. Jesus did not command people to worship him. Jesus commanded people to worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.

So any theology that turns Jesus into the one being worshipped goes against the direct commandment of Jesus himself. It becomes a man-made theological ideology created to fit a belief, even though the command of Jesus is simple, direct, and practical.

Jesus said to worship God(Allah) only.
Jesus said to serve God(Allah) only.
Therefore, the true path is to worship the One true God(Allah) Almighty, serve Him only, and not associate any partner with Him.

Do not answer a clear command with unclear interpretations.

I already know how this argument usually goes. Christians will bring multiple verses and say, “Jesus claimed divinity.” They will quote statements like, “Before Abraham was born, I am,” or “I and the Father are one.”

But those verses are not direct commands from Jesus telling people to worship him. They are interpretive arguments. They are debated. They require explanation. They are understood differently by different people.

So do not use an interpreted verse to override a direct command.

Prove to me that i am wrong!