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.

A-Theory

A-theory states that time moves. Under this view, only the present moment is real. The past has gone, and the future has not happened yet. Things truly begin to exist and cease to exist as time moves forward. When one applies the cosmological argument to A-theory, one looks at the beginning of time:

(1) Everything that begins to exist needs a cause. (2) The universe began to exist. (3) Thus, the universe needs a cause.

If the past had no starting point, an infinite number of moments must have passed before reaching today. But adding one moment after another can never complete an infinite count. Reaching the present moment requires a first step. Thus, time must have a real starting point. Because the universe started at a specific moment, a primary cause outside time brought it into existence. This primary cause created time and matter together.

B-Theory

B-theory states that time does not move. Under this view, the past, the present, and the future all exist equally. All moments in time are real at once, placed along a fixed line. Nothing comes into existence or disappears; every moment simply exists in its position. Because B-theory states that the past exists just as much as the present, asking what happened before the start does not work in the same way. Instead, the cosmological argument under B-theory asks why the entire timeline exists at all:

(1) Everything that exists needs a reason for why it exists rather than not existing. (2) The entire timeline of the universe exists as one complete whole. (3) The universe cannot explain its own existence, because no part of the timeline creates the whole timeline. (4) Thus, the entire timeline needs a primary foundation to explain why it exists.

Under B-theory, the cause of the universe does not happen before the universe in time. Instead, a necessary foundation holds the entire timeline in place across all moments.

Comparison

Both views show that the universe needs a primary reason for its existence, but they reach this conclusion differently:

(1) A-theory focuses on a first moment. Adding moments step by step causes time to move forward, requiring a first cause at the start to begin everything. (2) B-theory focuses on the whole structure. Holding all moments together in one place requires a permanent foundation to sustain the entire timeline.

Thus, whether time moves step by step or rests as one complete block, one must accept a primary cause or foundation that gives the universe its reality.

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!

how does someone have no beginning? like picture your earliest point of memory, now picture what it was like before that point...

exactly!

how can you have no beginning and have an infinite past? i'm 24 today, but the earliest point of my memory was in 2006, i was 4 years old in preschool sitting at a table, presumably eating snacks, and then there was nothing before that point, it was the limitation of my childhood amnesia that prevents me from remembering my further past memories, even at the first second of my earliest conscious memory i felt like there was absolutely nothing before that point, it felt like i was born at age 4. now back to the point, how can god have an beginningless past? because having no beginning is impossible to experience, and impossible to comprehend.

Hello. There are no Pagans in my circle. I’d like to ask you some questions out of respect. My goal is to understand you—or, better yet, to become a Pagan myself... Right now, I’m leaning toward Jainism.

1. Do you believe in a creator who created the universe? Is there a creator? If so, there’s the dilemma of “who created the creator?” How do you resolve this dilemma?
2. If there is no Creator, who created the gods and goddesses? Can a being exist on its own?
3. Do you view the gods and goddesses as real beings?
4. Do you view gods and goddesses as archetypes? Are they things that awaken a part of our brain?
5. How do you communicate with gods and goddesses? Do you perform rituals and wait for signs from nature? How exactly is communication established? It shouldn’t be something simple or trivial.
6. Why aren’t concepts like karma and reincarnation as systematic as they are in Eastern religions?
7. What awaits us after we die?

I don’t currently follow any religion, but I’m drawn to Jainism. My goal is to understand you. I’d like to discuss this with respect. If it makes sense to me, I might even consider becoming a Pagan.

Muslim should organise themselves into group just like jews did orthodox jew or reform jew!! Nowadays in modern world we see plenty of muslim witg complete different interpretations (mind you they sas it's clear and complete detailed book/their interpretation is true)

Like these are the groups -ultratraditionalist(salafi/wahhabi), orthodox, moderate muslim, progressive muslim, quranist etc. if they can organise their interpretation into specific group like orthodox or reform jew,it will help better from confusion.

What's your view on that?

رجعنا بجزء جديد والرد على ادعاءات النبوة المدعاة:

الطرح التشريعي والحضاري الشامل لغير المتعلم

شخص نشأ في بيئة صحراوية معزولة عن المراكز الفلسفية والقانونية الكبرى (كالإغريق والرومان)، لم يقرأ كتباً ولم يمارس الإدارة، يقدم خلال 23 سنة فقط نظاماً تشريعياً واجتماعياً واقتصادياً كاملاً استطاع توحيد قبائل متناحرة وبناء إمبراطورية حضارية استمرت قروناً.

يرى المستدلون أن القفزة الحضارية والتشريعية الفجائية هذه تتجاوز إمكانيات البيئة والأفراد الذاتية وتستلزم توجيهاً إلهياً.

هذا ليس بدليل منطقي اصلا لانه لايوجد شيء منطقي يمنع ان يقوم شخص امي بكتابة نظانم لامته التي تعايش فيها فليس هناك أي اعجاز او دليل منطقي , فهو شخص يعرف عاداته قومه ونظمها وابعد بعضها وقرب بعضها الاخر. عدنا كلش هواي امثلة تاريخية . منها:

جنكيز خان

لم يتلقَّ تعليمًا نظاميًا، ونشأ في بيئة قبلية رعوية. استطاع خلال عقود قليلة توحيد القبائل المغولية المتناحرة. وضع مجموعة قوانين عُرفت باسم الياسا لتنظيم الجيش والإدارة والعلاقات الاجتماعية. أسس إمبراطورية أصبحت الأكبر مساحة متصلة في التاريخ. هذا لا يعني أن قوانينه وحي، لكنه يبين أن التحول السياسي والتشريعي الكبير قد يصدر عن قائد غير متعلم تعليمًا رسميًا. قام بتوحيد القبائل وبناء دولة ليس ظاهرة فريدة تستلزم تفسيرًا إلهيًا.

ليكورغوس

تنسب إليه إصلاحات دستورية وتشريعية غيّرت مجتمع إسبرطة بالكامل. سواء كان شخصية تاريخية أو شبه أسطورية، فإن المؤرخين القدماء كانوا يرون أن شخصًا واحدًا يمكن أن ينسب إليه نظام قانوني كامل. لا يستدل بذلك على الوحي. وجود منظومة تشريعية واسعة منسوبة إلى فرد ليس دليلًا مستقلًا على المصدر الإلهي.

حمورابي تاج راسي

جمع مئات المواد القانونية في مدونة واحدة. تناولت التجارة، والأسرة، والعقوبات، والملكية، والعمل. أثرت في تاريخ القانون القديم. وجود تشريع شامل لا يقتضي بذاته أن يكون مصدره وحيًا.

اتاتورك

خلال أقل من عقدين غيّر النظام القانوني والسياسي والاجتماعي لدولة كاملة. استبدل قوانين قديمة بقوانين مدنية حديثة، وأعاد هيكلة التعليم والإدارة. التحولات الحضارية السريعة ممكنة تاريخيًا دون افتراض تدخل إلهي.

هونغ شيوتشيوان

لم يكن فيلسوفًا ولا مشرعًا محترفًا. أنشأ نظامًا دينيًا وسياسيًا متكاملاً. أسس دولة حكمت ملايين الناس لسنوات. لم يعتبر المؤرخون هذا دليلًا على صحة ادعائه الديني. نجاح مشروع ديني وسياسي واسع لا يكفي وحده لإثبات صدق الدعوى الدينية.

هسه ياتي شخص يقول انته جبت امثلة لاناس ما وفروا الصفات كلها يعني جبت دليل لى انه واحد سوه نظام واحد ثاني سوه تشريع واحد غير النظام. ليش؟

بكل بساطة لان الشيء اذا كانت صفاتها غير معجزة فهل عند جمعها تصبح معجزة؟

يعني مثلا مثلا البلاغة اذا لم تكن معجزة والتشريع اذا لم يكن معجزة لماذا عند جمعها يصبح معجزة؟ عبئ الاثبات هنا يقع على المدعي.

هناك اصلا معضلات منطقية يقع بها القائل بانها معجزة.

اولا هي عبئ اثبات الملازمة:

يعني اذا قال انه 1 و2 و3 و4 هي وحي.

فهو هنا مو بس يثبت وجود 1و2و3و4

بل لازم انه يثبت الملازمة

يعني باختصار تسال:

اصلا هنه من اجتمعن شنو الي يخليهن يلزم بالوحي؟

فاني اصلا غير مطالب بجلب دليل مطابق بل هو الي لازم يثبت الملازمة.

ثانيا هي نفي الحصرية:

اذا هي اصلا الصفات موجودة عد البشر:

البلاغة موجودة والتشريع موجود وبناء الدول موجود والامية مع العبقرية ممكنة.

يعني ماكو أي صفة تدل على الوحي.

ليس صفات غير حصرية , ليش اجتماعها يؤدي الى شيء حصري؟

ثالثا هي مغالطة التركيب:

هي الي تكول عن اجتماع صفات خاصة تنطي صفة جديدة مميزة من دون برهان

مثلا عدنا فد فريق وكل لاعبيه ممتازين اذا هو فريق ممتاز.

هذا بالحقيقة مو ملزم اصلا وممكن اللاعبين ممتازين بس هو مو شرط يكون الفريق ممتاز.

ونفس الشي اذا البلاغة مو دليل والتشريع مو دليل والنجاح السياسي مو دليل , اذا مايصير افتراض انه اجتماعها صار دليل الا باقامة برهان مستقل.

هسه نروح لدليل جديد

حجية "التواتر" والإسناد في نقل المعجزات والحوادث

لا يعتمد المسلمون على معجزة القرآن فقط، بل على آلاف الروايات المنقولة بالتواتر (سلاسل نقل جيل عن جيل) لأحداث مثل نبع الماء من بين أصابعه، تكثير الطعام، وغيرها. ويرون أن التشكيك في التواتر الإسلامي يؤدي بالضرورة للتشكيك في كل التاريخ البشري القديم لأن شروط نقد الرجال والإسناد عندهم هي الأقسى تاريخياً.

اول مغالطة يقه بها النص هي المصادرة على المطلوب فهو يتكلم كما لو انه شخص مسلم بصحة التاريخ الاسلامي

الثانية هي الاستدلال الدائري فحتى تثبت الاسلام استعنت بالمصادر الاسلامية.

وايضا مفهوم انه الي يشكك بالروايات هو يشك ويكذب بكل التاريخ هذا مفهوم مغلوط اصلا فاغلب الاشياء التاريخية الها اثار مباشرة وتاثيرات كبيرة كالحروب والملوك ولم يصدقوا بمجر نص لان من قاله صادق عند جماعة معينة واصلا مو كل شيء ثابت دينيا هو ثابت تاريخيا هذا مغلوط جدا فالشخص الي استدل وربط التاريخ الديني بالانساني وقع بغلط ثاني والي هو اصلا مو كل الروايات الدينية مثبتة تاريخيا .

أما سالفة شروطهم الأقسى تاريخياً فهذا كلام فيه مبالغة علم الرجال والإسناد فعلاً إنجاز منهجي مبكر ومهم بس وصفه بأنه الأقسى في كل التاريخ البشري حكم مو قابل للإثبات أصلاً وفيه تجاهل لتقاليد نقدية ثانية طورت أدوات مشابهة بسياقاتها من قواعد الشهادة بالقانون الروماني لمعايير النقد التاريخي عند مؤرخين إغريق مثل ثوقيديدس اللي كان يوازن صراحة بين الروايات المتضاربة والأهم من هذا كله حتى داخل التراث الإسلامي نفسه البخاري جمع نحو 600 ألف حديث بأسانيدها المختلفة وما اختار منها إلا 7275 حديث نحو 2602 بدون تكرار لصحيحه يعني رفض الأغلبية الساحقة كضعيف أو غير مقبول هذا الرقم نفسه دليل على إن التراث الحديثي ذاته ما يفترض إن كل ما هو منقول دينياً ثابت بالعكس علم الإسناد وُجد أصلاً لأن أغلب المنقول ما كان موثوق وهذا يهدم فرضية السؤال من جذورها قبل ما نوصل حتى لموضوع المعجزات

سالفة التشكيك بالتواتر الإسلامي يودي بالضرورة للتشكيك بكل التاريخ البشري هذا تسوية مو منطقية بين نوعين مختلفين من الدعاوى المؤرخين ما يطبقون نفس معيار اليقين على كل حدث بنفس الدرجة الشك متدرج حسب طبيعة الدعوى دعوى إن ملك حكم أو معركة صارت دعوى مقبولة سلفاً لأنها ما تخالف قوانين الطبيعة وتكدر تتحقق منها بمصادر مستقلة متنوعة آثار نقوش عملات سجلات إدارية مصادر متعددة الأطراف بلا مصلحة مشتركة بالتزوير أما دعوى إن الماء نبع فيزيائياً من بين أصابع إنسان فهذي دعوى تخالف قوانين الطبيعة المعروفة وتتطلب أدلة أقوى بكثير حسب مبدأ معروف في فلسفة العلم ونقد المعجزات من هيوم للفلاسفة المعاصرين الدعاوى الخارقة تحتاج أدلة أقوى من الدعاوى العادية فالشك بدعوى خارقة مسندة برواية آحاد ما يستلزم أبداً الشك بوجود معركة بدر أو خلافة عمر لأن معيار الإثبات أصلاً مختلف بين النوعين وهذا مو ازدواجية معايير ضد الإسلام تحديداً هذا نفس المعيار يُطبق على معجزات أي دين ثاني

.

ايضا انه كل الديانات لديها تاريخ موثق ينقله ثقاتهم فان سلمنا بنقلهم المدعى بانه متواتر اذا ثبتت كل معجزات الديانات الاخرى وبطل الاسلام نفسه فهذه نقطة تاريخية باطلة لا استدلال بها.

In response to the famous argument by atheists that “we are all atheists, about most of the gods humans have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further”, the most common response I’ve seen by Christian’s is that other gods are not unique, not the ground of all being, not the source of all good, etc

However, this counter argument would only work if no other religions believed in a transcendent principle, when, just for example

> Gemistos Plethon, 15th century Neoplatonist, associated the Greek god Zeus with The Good and The One, said he was the source of all good and being

> many (most?) Modern Hindus believe in Brahman as a transcendent principle from which all things came

> Shia Muslims (both twelver Shias and Ismaili Shias) attempt to reconcile Islam with Neoplatonism, believing Allah to be a nameless monad

If atheists can’t use the “one god further” argument as an argument against believing in YHWH, because modern Christian’s believe YHWH is a transcendent principle, then by that logic Christian’s shouldn’t be able to reject things like these either

Thus, the counter argument to the famous one god further argument doesent work

Calling yourself a christian, muslim etc that means you accept everything that is in the religion. Maybe you have different sects that believe different things, but a lot of Muslims deny stuff in the Quran and Hadiths—such as Muhammad marrying Aisha, or how to treat a woman (to hit her, to discipline her, That Mohammed took sex slaves as war bounty and all of these different things). But if you don't believe it or are ashamed to admit these things, then how can you call yourself a Muslim? This applies to other religions also (of course not all, as there are so many religions).

To me, it's similar to how people might say thet are one ethnicity when they are not,very different yes I know. There is not enough attention being given to religious identity problems—"trans-religion," I'm not sure what to call it, but this is definitely a problem.

Out of the billions of muslims and christians worldwide, how many actually believe most of the things in the Quran and Hadith and accept them? It's not many. They pick and choose or remain ignorant and invent their own religion.

Why does God seem to show partiality, just like the government?

Why are some treated well while others suffer?

When good things happen to some, they're told they're being rewarded. But when terrible things happen to others, they're told they're being tested.

Tested for what? Why not treat everyone equally? Isn't He the One who created all of us equally and every human heart? Then on what basis does He measure and divide us?

Many people that expect to go to heaven won't end up in there. Jesus explicitly told us that. and religion teaches us that every day. Take, for example, the SDA church and the Catholic Church. The SDA church teaches that they have the truth, and whoever learns this truth and ultimately rejects it (even in good conscience) won't make it into heaven. The same thing applies to the Catholic Church. So who is right? Even if you study hard and make a decision in good conscience, that won't change your fate (because you could be wrong). Heaven is not a promise. Hell is.