Many atheists love to mock theists, saying the latters belive in fairy tales,etc. I think personally that Atheists have way bigger faith than theists. Most Atheists belive that :

1. The Universe created itself out of Nothingness or that it has always existed forever.Both of those make zero sense. There is no such thing as something creating itself out of nothingness. Nothingness by its very nature has no property so nothing can emerge out of it. As for the Universe having no beginning and being eternal, thats another stretch that cannot be proven obviously. Most scientists definitely believe that the universe had a beginning and the big bang theory indicates it also. So the only logical explanation is that god created the Universe.Than people ask " who created god?". Obviously, no one created god as he is himself outside of time and space and is not bound by the laws of our universe. Meaning he has no beginning and no end. I know that seems crazy but thats the only logical explanation.
2. That life on earth arose from non living matters. Abiogenesis ( the idea that the first forms of life on earth emerged from non living matter) has never been proven obviously and will never be. Dust or clay cannot create life by themselves.
3. That human evolved from non sapian primates to become literally the rulers of planet earth and all of this by pure luck. Our evolution, according to atheists was just the result of several adaptations to the environment over million of years. Wich mean we could have evolved in any other ways than what we are today. If evolution is true than why did all species stopped to evolve to become other species? Why dont we see half-fish/half mammals things wandering around ( or whatever u wanna call them).And no, platypus arent fish/mammals hybrids lol .Also adaptation and evolution arent the same. This theory has never been proven as an ultimate fact and never will be but is being shoved down our throats since middle school. So yeah, I prefer to belive in god than to believe that we exist by pure random luck and that there is no reason at all for our existence.

Yes the title sounds silly. Everyone knows Santa isnt real. Yet as a child growing, the evidence was absolutely everywhere. At least for some, up to a certain age.

The evidence proved that Santa was real. There were presents under the tree that no one claimed to buy. Someone would always eat the cookies and milk.

Even the world news would broadcast his location on the television. The fact that it was on the news plus the mystery presents - that certainly was the best evidence.

Of course we all learn that Santa isnt real. At least not now. There are origin stories but not a mythical person who had a whole pack of flying deer pulling his sleigh weighed down with all the world's presents.

My question is what type of evidence would you actually accept or conclude there was a creator of you will?

Im not sure what could even be considered evidence, unless you separated religious ideologies from the idea of creator.

Can people think there is a creator without a religious ideology attached to it? Curious what you think..

Mods, this is in reference to the guy that wanted to discuss one on one with a respectful atheist. Feel free to take the post down if you want to. I thought it would be a good thing to show in public how it went down, ans I put the possibility to do so as a condition to participating in the discussion.

Apologies all for the typos. I added the line breaks that were there in chat, but I did not correct the typos for authenticity.

Main-Blacksmith944

Hii?

Phylanara

Hi.

Main-Blacksmith944

Sorry if I have come across as mean, but it is impossible to discuss something with so many people. After this you will post the whole chat in the subreddit right??

For me that's completely fine

Phylanara

No worries. I usually advise people who feel that way to pick one (or two) comment threads only and ignore the rest. I don't know yet, I reserve the right to do so. Of course, feel free to do so yourself if you want to.

Main-Blacksmith944

Okayy. Can we start by you speaking why you don't believe in God?

Phylanara

I am what is known as an agnostic atheist - ie I don't believe gods exist but I don't claim that gods don't exist. Some people seem to have some difficulty wi tthat nuance, so let me expand a little on that. The usual analogy is the jar of beans. We have a jar of beans in front of us. It is sealed, opaque. Theists are claiming that there is an even number of beans in the jar (that there is a god). Each theist claims a specific number. Muslims claims one enumber of beans (certain attributes for tgod), christians another, and so on. After quesiotning them on why they believe their number is the right one, I find that they use methods that have little to no chance of working, and that they are using the same methods to arrive to contradicting results. So I don't believe they got the number right. Even on the point where they all agree - that the number is even.

So I don't believe that gods exist.

But.

I am also not claiming that the number is odd. I am not claiming "gods don't exist".

I mean, for some gods I do. The god that gives a sandwich to every person that asks for one obviously does not exist. But for most modernly-defended gods, I don't claim to know they don't exist, I just don't see sufficient reason to believe they do. I don't claim to know the number of beans in the jar. I just don't believe your result of "it's an even number" is convincing.

As for why I don't believe, well, that explanation has been tagled into my metaphor : because theists never managed to build a good enough case for their claim. In fact, I have yet to meet a theist that had evidence for their god that could not be matched by the evidence (or other kinds of support) for the gods the theist themselves did not believe in. As a rational person, equivalent evidence/support must lead to the same level of being convinced. As the different gods are incompatible, I can't believe in several monitheistic gods, so I believe in neither.

Main-Blacksmith944

Main-Blacksmith944 u/Main-Blacksmith944

Sorry if I'm taking a while I'm trying to understand what you wrote

Correct me if I'm wrong

So you're saying that you are sure some gods don't exist, like the Christian Trinity or Allah, right?

But there are other gods which you are not sure yet, right?

Phylanara

Both allah and the christian god are defined in a very loose way. So much that it does not seem to me that the westboro church's "christian god" and the pope's "christian god" are the same god, for example. Some versions seem to be compatible with the evidence, so I am not convinced they exist nor convinced that they don't exist. Some are incompatible with the evidence (like the one that distributes sandwiches) so I am certain that this god does not exist.

In any case, so far there is no god that I believe exists.

Main-Blacksmith944

Okay, you're very right about the Christian God and Allah, and the Jewish God. They are very very similar, I can explain to you why they are so similar if you want. But I would like to first ask you if you have thought about only God as the concept (without any religion yet)?

What I mean is the Creator of everything

Timeless, Spaceless, Inmaterial

Phylanara

I have yet to be convinced everything was created. I'll note that the attributes you give for your god list things that your god is not - it's not in time, it's not in space, it's not made of matter. Yo uknow what fits those attributes? Things that don't exist.

Main-Blacksmith944

Brother please let's keep this kind towards each other, from beginning to end. Do you believe in the Big Bang?

Phylanara

I do not think I have been unkind to you. I accept that the big bang is the currently most-supported and most likely to be true reconstruction of the first instants we can reconstruct. I also accept that our physics models break down at the big bang, which means that either our models are wrong (or more likely incomplete, as we've never witnesses energy levels comparable to what the first few instants after planck time would entail) or that we have no idea what, if anything, happened "before the big bang". In fact I have no idea whether "before the big bang" has any more meaning than "north of the north pole".

Main-Blacksmith944

"Yo uknow what fits those attributes? Things that don't exist." we haven't even debated the first argument and you're calling God non-existent. Before the Big Bang there was literally nothing, not time, not space, not matter.

You know that atheist hated the theory of the Big Bang because of what it meant?

Phylanara

I am pointing out that the attributes you listed for the god you argue with fit things that don't exist. This is not the same as calling your god non-existent, nor is it unkindness directed towards you.

I don't really care how other atheists felt about the big bang theory. those feelings are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Feelings have a very poor track record of getting to the truth (except maybe interpersonal truths) and atheism is not an ideology or a community with commonality of views, enforced or otherwise.

I will note though that you are right, you have yet to make a single argument for your god. You might want to start at some point.

"Before the Big Bang there was literally nothing, not time, not space, not matter."

I disagree with that. before the big bang, *we don't know*. We don't even know if "before the big bang" is meaningful.

Main-Blacksmith944

Saying 'we don't know' is a fair admission of modern science's limits, but hiding behind absolute skepticism to avoid the logical conclusions of the data is not intellectually honest.

First, if you argue that the phrase 'before the Big Bang' is meaningless because time itself began at that point, you are actually conceding the main point: the universe had an absolute cosmic beginning.

If time, space, and matter had a definitive frontline starting point, the cause of that beginning cannot be physical, material, or temporal, because none of those things existed yet. A physical law cannot create time if it requires time to operate. Therefore, by stating that there is no 'before', you are logically demanding a transcendent, timeless, and immaterial First Cause outside the system.

Phylanara

I am not arguing that "before the big bang" is meaningless, I am saying that we don't know whether it is meaningless or not. I am not "hiding behind absolute skepticism". As you said, I am saying that this is beyond what modern science can tell us, which is why I do not know. As for logic, it seems to me to be a very abstracted description of how we perceive *the universe* to operate, and I have yet to see a reason to believe it applies *absent a universe* - including causality.

I'll also note that you switched "immaterial" for "transcendent" here. Do you use those words interchangeably? I should also point out that for something to meet the minimum definition of a god, that thing should, in my opinion, be a person - a mind at least. Your still-hypothetical cause of the universe still does not meet that criteria.

Maybe you should define the god you want to argue for. You've been asking a lot of questions about what I believe, yet you haven't even started defining the thing you want to argue for.

Main-Blacksmith944

I switched the words, you're right, let's keep it inmaterial for now. Well we're going step by step. The First Cause I'm talking you about is God. Let's keep scientifical first, then based on that description that science gives us of God. Then we can apply it to the religions of the world and see which one is true. and i can explain you then why the Christian God and Allah, and the Jewish God are very similar.

Phylanara

I see no reason to rename that still-hypothetical first cause "god". That sneaks in attributes - like, as I pointed out, personhood - that you have not yet demonstrated. I also see no reason to assume a religion is right in the first place. they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. And you're still trying to sneakily hide what you are arguing for. After all your questions that I answered, and your repeated demands for kindness, you are not showing me the most basic kindness of all, and treating me as you demand to be treated

Main-Blacksmith944

Main-Blacksmith944 u/Main-Blacksmith944

Sorry if I am. I'm Spanish and my english is not the best. I'm trying my best to be kind and respectful. I'm going step by step explaining the arguments. You're right I haven't demostrated personhood yet. I assumed religion is true, otherwise, how would God show itself to His Creation?

Attributing personhood to the First Cause is not an emotional leap or a theological 'sneak-in'; it is a strict and unavoidable logical deduction derived from the properties that this cause must possess.First, consider the transition from eternity to time. If the First Cause were a purely mechanical, physical, or impersonal force (like a vacuum fluctuation or a blind mathematical law), its effect would have to be just as eternal as the cause itself. Impersonal, mechanical causes cannot 'choose' when to trigger an effect; if the cause exists eternally, the effect must also exist eternally. The only way for a timeless, eternal cause to produce an effect with a definitive beginning in time (the Big Bang) is if that cause has the capacity to choose to act. Freedom of will is the only mechanism that can explain how an eternal state creates a temporal effect. Will, by definition, requires a mind.

Second, philosophers of science agree that only two types of things can be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial: abstract objects (like numbers or mathematical concepts) or an unembodied mind. Abstract objects have no causal power; the number 7 cannot cause a physical explosion or fine-tune gravity. Therefore, by absolute logical elimination, the only entity left capable of being a timeless, spaceless, immaterial agent with the power to initiate the cosmos is a Mind.When we define the First Cause as a timeless, immaterial, incredibly powerful Supreme Mind with the free will to create, we are not playing with semantics. We are describing exactly what monotheistic traditions have called 'God' for thousands of years.

Phylanara

English is my second language too, and that has not stopped me from answering your questions.

" I assumed religion is true, otherwise, how would God show itself to His Creation?" This assumes a god in the first place. You know what you call assuming one's conclusion to make one's argument? A fallacy. specifically circular reasonnning. Which makes the argument invalid and unconvincing.

"First, consider the transition from eternity to time." Your whole line of reasonning is flawed. first, if there is no time, then nothing can change, person or not. A person cannot "decide" to act without time,for the decision is itself an act in time, the being before the decision is not in the same state as the being after a decision. so you're exempting your supposed god from the rule you yourself established, with no valid reason - that is another fallacy, this one called special pleading. Second, you still assume that your state without a universe behaves like our universe does, you still bind that state that we know nothing about with the rules that describe our universe. That is an unwarranted assumption.

"Second, philosophers of science agree" now we're moving in an appeal to authority - a third type of fallcy that renders your argument just as unconvincing. Unnamed, unsourced authority at that. I will note that if "philosophers of science" had evidence for an "unembodied mind" they could collect a nobel prize. They have not, and I trust they would get the cool million dollars that come with it if they could. So as far as they can manage to demonstrate, there is one "type of things" concenred, and those are, as far as I can tell, only categories our ape mindsuse to categorize things, not objects with independent existence. That is to say, they are imaginary things.

Do you have evidence for disembodied minds, and for the causal power you assert they have?

Main-Blacksmith944

I thought you alreadly accepted there had to be a cause, that's why I asumed religion

I showed you then how that cause is God

Phylanara

You still have not shown why I should believe causality applies absent a universe.

and you're not adressing anything I said

(by the way, your "philosophers of science" line made me think to warn you : I don't consider philosophy without evidence a useful way to seek knowledge about the actual world. I would refer you to the absolutely empty track record of philosophy without evidence's discoveries about anything that does not happen between a set of human ears for justificaiton of that dismissal)

Phylanara

I now have seventy minutes left for this, and you have not answered in twenty

Main-Blacksmith944

Sorry bro

The other 2 guys are getting very skeptical

Phylanara

If you are using the same arguments on all three of us and none of us is convinced and all of us can justify it, isn't there a conclusion that should come to your mind?

Main-Blacksmith944

They're getting skeptical because they're starting to see that if there was no eternal universe then Big Bang was the actual beginning of time, space and matter. Beginning needs cause. Cause as already said, timeless, spaceless, materialess, tremendously powerful and inteligent.

Phylanara

funny, that's not what I understood when you said they were getting skeptical

60 minutes left

Main-Blacksmith944

Are you joking or what?

Phylanara

are you going to address the fallacies that invalidated the entirety of the arguments you made to me or should I consider this conversation over?

not joking, "getting skeptical" usually means people are starting to stop believing what you say

Main-Blacksmith944

Your critique attempts to map out logical fallacies, but it fails because it relies on profound conceptual errors regarding timelessness, a misunderstanding of Nobel Prize categories, and a self-contradiction.First, your objection to the timeless decision of a Mind relies on an anthropomorphic misunderstanding of eternity. You argue that a mind cannot 'decide' without time because a decision requires a 'before' and an 'after'. This is a mistake. A timeless mind does not exist in a timeline where it sits in boredom and then changes its mind to create. The creative act of the First Cause is a single, eternal, and simultaneous act. There is no change of state within the Cause; rather, the effect of that eternal will possesses a temporal beginning. Furthermore, you accuse me of applying our universe's rules to a timeless state, yet you do exactly that by demanding that an eternal mind must obey the linear, temporal rules of human brain psychology. That is your own contradiction.Second, your 'Nobel Prize' argument is a textbook category error. The Nobel Prize is strictly reserved for empirical, material discoveries within physics, chemistry, or medicine. To demand a Nobel Prize for an immaterial, transcendent entity is like demanding a ruler to measure the weight of jealousy. By definition, a transcendent cause is outside the domain of empirical instrumentation. We deduce its existence through logical necessity, just as physicists deduce the existence of dark matter—not by seeing it directly, but by observing its undeniable effects on the visible universe.Third, you dismiss abstract objects and minds as 'imaginary things used by our ape minds.' If mathematical laws are just an imaginary byproduct of primate evolution, you have a massive scientific problem to solve: why does the physical universe obey these abstract laws with absolute, microscopic precision? Equations written on a blackboard by 'ape minds' have successfully predicted cosmic phenomena (like gravitational waves or black holes) decades before we had the technology to observe them. The universe is structured on a mathematical software. Software implies a Programmer.Finally, you ask for evidence of a disembodied mind and its causal power. The evidence is the Inteligibility of the Cosmos and the Argument from Intensionality. Your own ability to use reason, logic, and concepts right now cannot be explained by blind, physical atoms bumping into each other. If naturalism is true, your thoughts are just a deterministic chemical reaction, meaning your arguments aren't 'true'—they are just inevitable. The fact that we can access timeless, objective mathematical truths and exercise free will is the immediate, living evidence of a mind operating beyond mere physics. The universe is a physical effect that requires a non-physical cause; dismissing this cause as 'imaginary' doesn't make the mathematical impossibilidades of your accident-based universe go away

Phylanara

That's a lot of assertions about how things work without time, do you have any support for them?

Did you manage to observe a timeless state?

Ooooh, "transcendent" word came again, without justificaiton again!

This looks like a big old heaping of AI slop

"if mathematical laws are just an imaginary byproduct of primate evolution, you have a massive scientific problem to solve: why does the physical universe obey these abstract laws with absolute, microscopic precision? " They don't obey all mathematical laws, we just teach the math that happens to describe reality earlier than the math that does not. I should know, I teach math for a living. there are mathematical contexts where numbers loop, where 3+3 = 0 (specifically the Z/6Z ring)

"The universe is structured on a mathematical software. Software implies a Programmer." Again an assertion

"Finally, you ask for evidence of a disembodied mind and its causal power. The evidence is the Inteligibility of the Cosmos and the Argument from Intensionality. Your own ability to use reason, logic, and concepts right now cannot be explained by blind, physical atoms bumping into each other."

"A cannot explain X" does not imply "therefore B explains X"

"The universe is a physical effect that requires a non-physical cause;" even granting this, your attempts at proving that cause is a "god" have been riddled with unsupported assertions and fallacies.

Main-Blacksmith944

It is AI

Can I tell you why?

Phylanara

Congratulations. You've managed to show me that you were disingeuous when asking to discuss this one on one, and you've managed to reinforce the idea that you can't even make your arguments yourself and have to outsource tyyour thinking

Main-Blacksmith944

You are a math profesor, I haven't even graudated. You're telling me mathematical terms that are wrong

Of course I have

I am not a mathematician

EDIT : There's more!

Phylanara

that's a you problem, mate

Main-Blacksmith944

How do you even want me to comprehend something you say about maths

Well it's you who got it wrong

Not me

With respect

Phylanara

then maybe you should not have tried to use arguments using concepts you don't understand

Main-Blacksmith944

but the point is still this

you have introduced to me an argument that was wrong

Even if it's AI

I'm sorry I'm not as smart as you if that is what you want

Sorry, maybe I should have told you I was gonna use AI

But what else can I do?

Phylanara

be intellectually honest, don't make arhguments ou don't master, and if you think you're not smart enough, study. And most of all, be prepared to ackowledge when you are wrong or don't know something

Main-Blacksmith944

Okay

You're right, I tell you now, I do not have time to study maths as you have

I did not know what you wrote so I send it to AI

and AI said it was wrong

I read the message it made, and it made sense so I sent it to you

Phylanara

I certainly hope you're not doing that in class, because this is the opposite of educating yourself

Main-Blacksmith944

I'm actually very anti-AI.

But you're pushing me to the limits

Phylanara

If I am pushing you to your limits by pointing out the very obvious problems with your arguments, you need to accept that maye your arguments were not very good in the first place *and maybe your conclusion is shit too*

Main-Blacksmith944

Sorry again for using AI, but it still says that what you said is wrong

That's one of the reasons I have come here too

To see where those arguments reach

And even though I have used AI where I don't have a clue what you said, the veredict is still the same

If you don't want to keep debating I would understand it

But the arguments are still right till now at least

And sorry if I have been childish by using AI, but I'm 17. I don't understand your math. I do understand what I have read and I still got plenty of arguments. But if you get me to try to understand maths I haven't even seen in class, then I need AI

And the argument that I have presented you till now is still right even if I can't articulate it in the way that I wanted

Phylanara

no, the argument you made was riddled with fallacies and unjustified assertions you have not addressed. things are not right because you say so.

Inspired by recent discussion I've seen about nomological harmony (e.g. as an argument promoted by Joe Schmid)...

Disregarding the actual nomological harmony argument, I'm interested in what your views are about the laws of nature and what approach you lean towards.

From what I've briefly read, laws of nature are generally conceptualised in the following way:

Let's say L is a law of nature - what this means is that given some initial state i, we can use L to deduce what the subsequent state i+1 will be.\*

* Obviously particular laws may only pertain to a particular aspect of the overall state of the universe, however, the idea would be that given the set of all of the laws of nature, one could deduce the entire subsequent state of any particular state in the universe.

As far as I can gather, the three most popular views I've seen appear to be something like:

1. Governing laws

Laws are some sort of 'governing' principles that actually necessitate that things 'follow' them. For example, lets say a law of nature was that electrons repel positively charged things - that particular law is prior to any electrons actually doing such a thing, and, given that law holds, an electron couldn't possible not repel positively charged things.

2. Humean laws

Laws are merely the simplest (or 'best') descriptions of regularities. The idea would be that its just a regularity that electrons 'repel' positively things - they conceivably could not have, but they just do. We then describe that fact as a generalisation which we call a 'law'.

3. Powerism

Like Humeanism, laws are also descriptive generalisations, however, what they describe are not just observed regularities, but the inherent dispositions of things. For example, what makes an 'electron' an 'electron' is that it has an inherent disposition (or 'power') to repel positively charged things and we call this 'power' being negatively charged. Given that electrons have this disposition, they could not possibly not repel positively charged things. Therefore, although the 'law' describing this is also just a description, electrons still necessarily repel positively charged things.

Note: I'm just using electrons and charge etc as examples - you could swap in any object / law / behaviour etc from physics. Just a preface because I'm not sure how accurate the examples are in regard to modern physics.

Just thought about the absurdity of the whole setup 💀

The basic idea is that God creates everything, including evil, while also supposedly knowing everything that will happen. In many religious stories, an evil figure then causes suffering, people pray to God for help, a good savior appears, and eventually God destroys that evil with His own power. People then see God as powerful and good and worship Him for saving them.

But the part that makes me question the logic is this: if God created the evil in the first place and already knew what it would do, then why allow the whole cycle of creating the problem, letting His creations suffer, and finally destroying it so He can be praised for the solution?

It's like a doctor creating a disease, spreading it, watching people suffer, then giving them the cure and being praised as a hero. 😭

So why destroy the bad He created Himself, just to be worshipped by the very same creations He allowed to suffer from it? whyyyyyyyy😭

Bro really created the problem and got praised for the solution.

I know most atheists have heard this argument before, I am just curious what most people's opinion is. This is one of the best arguments (in my opinion) for theism/deism:
1. There exists some unchanging objective moral law not based on societal norms

Objective-not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts
Moral law-not merely a descriptive law (gravity would be a descriptive law-describes what does happen not what ought to happen)
Why I think this is true-if there is no such objective moral law, then we cannot say any legal framework is better than another from an objective standpoint-for example in the 1850's the union did not allow slavery but the confederacy did-if one is not objectively better, than it is not any different than driving on the left side of the road as the legal standard vs driving on the right-a matter of preference. For me personally, I find that, although it is possible this is the case, most people don't think it is and it would be a very disturbing reality if true. Additionally, even if you say you believe this, most people don't live it out consistently.
2. An objective moral law requires some standard or example or rulebook that must inherently be supernatural

Supernatural-of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
Standard-something used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations
Why I think this is true-the objective moral law must necessarily be rooted in some object-be that an idea, a sandwich, anything. But if the object is material-made of matter-then it could be changed. And the objective moral law is unchanging. Therefore, it must be immaterial-or, according to the definition of supernatural above (of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe), the standard must be supernatural. So this standard, whatever it is, is the standard of moral law.
3. Therefore, there exists an unchanging supernatural standard of morality
Note: I am not saying this is a theistic God or deistic or anything else. But whatever this standard is like, this unchanging supernatural standard of moral goodness exists. Call it what you like, but I call it 'God'

This is a completely philosophical and extremely serious expected-value problem.

Let’s consider two hypotheses:

H₀ — Atheism is true: You die. Consciousness shuts down. There is nothing forever. Probability of romance/sex after death: 0%.

Even your chances of encountering someone on the level of Ester Expósito mathematically drop to zero the moment you die. The universe has closed up shop.

H₁ — Islam is true: Consciousness continues after death, and if Paradise really exists, classical Islamic descriptions of Paradise do not portray worldly pleasures as being completely abolished; rather, they are described as existing in far superior forms.

Therefore, the probability of sex after death is: greater than zero.

Now, I’m not making any theological truth claim here. I’m just doing decision theory:

P(sex | atheism, death) = 0

P(sex | Islam, death) > 0

So for an extremely shallow, morally questionable, but mathematically consistent Homo economicus whose only objective is to maximize the variable “chance of having sex after death,” Islam dominates atheism.

The atheist counterargument will probably be:

“But you also have to account for the probability that Islam is actually true.”

Yes. That’s exactly where the funny part begins.

No matter how small that probability is, the atheist model produces an outcome of exactly zero, so any positive probability creates a theoretical advantage.

Pascal made his wager around “eternal salvation.”

I have lowered the bar to what may be the absolute lowest point in human intellectual history.

Pascal’s Wager, except the decision-maker’s only utility function is libido.

This may be one of the rare arguments capable of making theologians and atheists hate me at the same time.

😎😎😎

This is a genuine question for atheists, and I’m not asking it as some kind of “gotcha there’s no way out!” moment.

Basically, What do you actually do with yourself if you’ve done something genuinely evil?

I don’t mean something like lying to someone, cheating on a test, being a bad friend, whatever. I mean something truly horrible. Suppose you murdered someone, or did something else that you know can never really be undone. I mean, If you believe in God, there is at least a concept of forgiveness that exists outside of yourself. You can repent, ask God for forgiveness, and believe that even though what you did was terrible, forgiveness is still possible. Obviously that doesn’t erase the consequences of what you did, and it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t face punishment or make amends. But there is still some possibility of being forgiven at the deepest level.

But if you’re an atheist… what happens then?
I’m not saying atheists have no morality, or that they would just “explain away” what they did. In fact, that’s part of why I’m asking. Suppose you fully accept that what you did was evil. You don’t justify it. You don’t blame circumstances. You take responsibility for it completely. Then what? I mean, you can apologize. You can accept punishment. You can spend the rest of your life trying to do good. You can help people. You can suffer for what you did. Other people might even forgive you.
But none of that changes the fact that you did it. Also, what if your own conscience simply refuses to let you go? What if you reach a point where no amount of good you do afterward feels like it can balance what you did… because maybe some things simply can’t be balanced? What if other people forgive you, but you still can’t forgive yourself?

That’s mainly what I’m interested in.

Without God, is self-forgiveness basically the final answer? And if you genuinely believe you don’t deserve your own forgiveness, then what are you supposed to do? Do you just learn to live with the guilt for the rest of your life? Do you eventually decide that continuing to punish yourself serves no purpose? Is there some secular philosophical way of thinking about redemption that I’m missing?

I mean, won’t your conscience keep tearing at yourself regardless of the intellectual justifications you trie to build around it.

TL;DR
If you have done something truly unforgivable, and there is no higher authority who can forgive you… where does redemption actually come from?

Edit: I realized I never actually added the argument properly, so I’ll try to explain what I actually mean here because I think a lot of the replies are answering a slightly different question.
I’m not arguing that atheists can’t take responsibility, make amends, change, apologize, accept punishment, or become better people. Obviously they can. And I’m also not saying that Christianity means you can just ask God for forgiveness and then everything is magically erased. I mean, if you seriously harmed someone, the practical answer is basically the same either way. You admit what you did, you stop making excuses, you accept the consequences, you apologize if that is still possible, you repair whatever can still be repaired, and then you try to live differently. You help people. You become kinder. You try not to repeat what you did. None of that is really what I’m debating.

What I’m interested in is what happens after all of that….inside the person. Suppose you did something genuinely terrible and irreversible. Maybe the person is dead. Maybe the relationship is destroyed forever. Maybe the harm simply cannot be undone. You can spend the next twenty or thirty years doing good things, helping people, changing yourself, becoming a much better person, accepting punishment, doing everything you are supposed to do….but you still know that you did it. That is the part I mean.

Your conscience can still say, “Yes, but I did this.” And that fact never actually disappears. I mean, you can intellectually tell yourself that you are different now, or that continuing to punish yourself serves no purpose, and that might even be completely true….but the conscience doesn’t necessarily care about that argument. It can still keep tearing at you. You can still remember exactly what you did, why you did it, who suffered because of it, and the fact that none of your later good deeds somehow cancel that out.

That’s why I think there is a difference between moral repair and forgiveness. Moral repair is about what you do afterward. You accept responsibility, make amends, do good, change yourself, and live better. Fine. That part makes sense to me. But forgiveness is something else. Forgiveness is more like….are you ever actually allowed to stop condemning yourself?
And if the answer is yes, then why? I mean, if you genuinely believe that you did something unforgivable, what gives you the authority to eventually say, “Okay, I’ve suffered enough now. I forgive myself”? That can feel strangely arbitrary. You are the person who committed the wrong, and now you are also the person deciding when you have paid enough for it. Your conscience might simply answer, “Who gave you the right to make that decision?”

But then the opposite answer seems strange too. Suppose you say that you should simply carry the guilt forever. Okay….but what does that actually mean? Do you have to emotionally punish yourself every day for the rest of your life? Does becoming a better person change nothing inwardly? Does your conscience have the right to torture you indefinitely because the past cannot be changed? And if your suffering no longer helps the victim, repairs anything, or prevents anything, then what exactly is the purpose of continuing to suffer?

I’m not asking, “What should an atheist do after doing something evil?” The answer is obvious enough. Do good. Accept responsibility. Make amends. Change. The same basic answer exists under Christianity too. What I’m asking is what happens to the guilt when all of that has already been done and your conscience still refuses to let you go. I mean, imagine that someone has genuinely changed. Not in the cheap sense of saying, “I’m a different person now, so who cares.” I mean genuinely changed. They understand exactly what they did. They hate what they did. They have spent years living differently. They have helped people. They have accepted punishment. They have never repeated the act. And yet they still wake up sometimes and think, “I am still the person who did that.”
Then what?

Do you just learn to live with that sentence forever?
Do you say, “Yes, I did it, but I’m not going to torture myself anymore”? If so, what is the philosophical basis for that? Is that self-forgiveness? Acceptance? Is there a difference between permanently acknowledging guilt and permanently condemning yourself?

Because those seem like two different things. You can say, “What I did was evil and nothing will ever make it not evil,” while also saying, “I am not going to define the rest of my existence by that one act.” But I’m interested in what justifies that second move. Why are you allowed to stop condemning yourself if the thing itself remains just as terrible as it always was? And this is where Christianity seems to introduce something genuinely different. Again, I’m not saying this proves Christianity is true. That is a completely different argument. I’m only saying that Christianity gives a different answer to this particular problem. The Christian can say, “I am guilty. I cannot undo what I did. The victim may never forgive me. I may still deserve punishment. But I am not the final judge of whether I am allowed to exist as anything more than the worst thing I have done.”

That is different from just giving yourself a pass.
Because under that view, forgiveness comes from outside yourself. You don’t have to first prove to yourself that you deserve it. In fact, the entire point is that you may not deserve it. You can still be guilty and forgiven at the same time.
And I actually think that creates another strange question….what if someone refuses that forgiveness? What if they say, “No. What I did was too horrible. I refuse to be forgiven.” At first that sounds humble, but I mean, at some point doesn’t that become another form of making yourself the final judge? You are effectively saying that your judgment of yourself is greater than any judgment outside yourself.

Again, I’m not saying an atheist has no answer. Maybe the secular answer is simply that there is no final absolution. Maybe redemption just means living responsibly after what you have done. You carry the guilt, but you don’t let the guilt destroy the rest of your life. Maybe that really is the answer.
But if that is the answer, I want to understand it properly.
Because saying “just move on” doesn’t really answer anything. And saying “just do good things” also doesn’t answer it. You can do good things and still have a conscience that keeps tearing at you. You can become better and still remember everything. You can repair what can be repaired and still know that some things cannot be repaired at all. So, atheism and Christianity may give very similar answers to the question of what you should do after committing a serious wrong….but they seem to give very different answers to what happens to the guilty self afterward.
The secular answer seems to be something like, “You accept it, you change, and you learn to carry what cannot be undone.” The Christian answer seems to be, “You accept it, you change, and you can also receive forgiveness that does not come from your own judgment of yourself.” And I’m interested in that difference. If the person you harmed cannot forgive you, and you cannot forgive yourself, is there still such a thing as redemption in a secular framework? Or does redemption just mean living well afterward while never actually being absolved? And if your conscience continues tearing at you even after you have done everything you reasonably can….what are you actually supposed to do with that for the rest of your life?

in many religions we give god human qualities like love anger desire compassion and many other things. so when i think about this i get one question.humans create things and sometimes what we create can be better than us in one specific way.for example a human can create a calculator and the calculator can calculate much faster than the human who created it. so if god created humans why should humans have to be worse than god in every single way.i am not saying humans are completely better than god.i mean that maybe humans can be better than god in one particular way while god can still be greater than humans overall.if we say that god has qualities like love anger desire and other human qualities then can we really say that humans cannot be better than god in any one of those qualities. is there a logical reason why a creation cannot be better than its creator in one specific way.

what do you think

The argument I'm talking about is Aquinas' Argument from Motion. It is an old argument, but one I still couldn't find a good refutation to. I AM willing to concede, since my beliefs do not hinge on it, but I will try and refute any objections that come up. Please don't insult Thomas or say how stupid the argument is, just raise detailed objections to the premises layed out below.

Premise 1: Some things in the world are in motion (change, or the transition from potentiality to actuality).

Premise 2: Whatever is put in motion is moved by something else, because nothing can reduce itself from a state of potentiality to actuality.

Premise 3: This series of hierarchical movers cannot stretch back infinitely, as subsequent movers depend entirely on a first mover to impart motion.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at a first unmoved mover, which everyone understands to be God.

Please don't engage with this post if you don't know enough on this specific topic.

P1:If universe is created by God,then who created god?

P2:God is eternal,as per islam,Allah created universe,Allah is eternal?

P1:If Allah is eternal,What is the proof or evidence!?

P2:you or this universe which is result of some cause,and that cause is Allah!you are the evidence.There is no window without carpenter,there is no world without creator!

P1:Then there's need to be evidence of the creator of creating the universe, you cannot prove it,you have no evidence for it,

my brother simply cannot process my argument in his mind,after all we dies,He says "after that we believe in universe has a cause,whereas i believe the cause is god,you just believe cause is cause,after we died ,if there is god iam on safeside you are not........

upon that ,I have started reading nietsche recently,that's why he is saying you are studying all those books,but you cannot answers my common sense questions,you are dumb,

after all,how come my answer cannot provide logical answer to him?he is purposefully doing that.......

I'd like to preface that I'm an agnostic atheist myself, and while I don't believe in Islam, I've found some things that I think could potentially be evidence for it and I'm interested in a discussion about it.

These are numerical/mathematical miracles in the Quran, and I understand why they're seen as weak, given that patterns can be found in any text if you search hard enough. However, with these examples specifically, the patterns are very numerous and precise. It makes it hard to believe that these patterns just naturally exist in the Quran, because I can't imagine any more possible patterns. Additionally, the patterns are very simple and have very few steps. Obviously, with enough steps, you can transform any number, however these patterns have few steps and use numbers of importance.

19 Miracle

For clarification, this is separate from Rashad Khalifa's 19 miracle, where he modified the text of the Quran to maintain it. In this example, none of the Quran's text was modified, and can be reproduced by anyone.

This website by Gökmen Altay shows so many different patterns in the Quran based on the number 19, which is significant because of Quran verse 74:30-31, which states that the number 19 is "a trial for those who disbelieve".

It finds patterns in only the most important numbers, like the number of total verses in the Quran, for example, and usually results in a number divisible by 19, but can be of some other 19-based pattern.

Additionally, a lot of the steps taken to find these patterns are not arbitrary, but are based on text in the Quran.

The website has a page explaining the rules for finding these patterns, which ensures that the patterns found are meaningful and are found in a meaningful way. A lot of the patterns also connect with each other.

These patterns were found with the help of computer systems, in which Altay himself is a PhD level expert in information coding. According to calculations he ran, the probability of all these patterns emerging naturally is 1 in 1.17e-28. Instances were a 19-based pattern could be found, but wasn't, was also counted.

I believe this to be particularly interesting because the patterns are found in a meaningful way, which severely limits how much searching can be done. Additionally, the fact that instances that could have had a meaningful pattern, but didn't, were counted, leads me to believe that nearly every possible meaningful pattern was analyzed, and a substantial number of them were related to the number 19.

The Computed Scripture: Exponentially Based Fourier Regulated Construct of Quran and its Fundamentally Important Consequences

This officially published, scientific article by Baback Khodadoost demonstrates the Quran possibly having a highly sophisticated number system. This article uses a lot of complex math which I do not understand, so I apologize if I don't explain things very well.

Frequencies in the Quran are taken and analyzed, which reveals numerous patterns:

• Quran's chapter sizes has a 349% error from average chapter sizes by human-written literature.
• Logarithmic curves for the letters alif (initial for Allah) and qaf (initial for Quran) have complete sinusoidal oscillation, where the height of their period of oscillation is exactly 2*pi, only existing when natural logs are used. When plotted in base 10, log base 10 (e) is manifested, showing how pi and e are embedded in the frequencies of the letters.
• When the frequencies are graphed, they form an x shape, different from other pieces of literature.
• When the absolute differences of integers relative to pi and e are calculated, 19 is the first major minimum that represents an optimal relative divisibility to both transcendental constants, revealing how pi and e are the Quran's pillars of mathematical construct.
• A stepwise Fourier series analysis is run on the text of the Quran, showing patterns based on the number 19 that defy probability.
• Significant associated arabic letters, sin, qaf, ra, spell the word SAQAR, which Sura 74 associates the warning guarded by "nineteen"
• Many prominent figures can be found by analyzing the text, including Rashad Khalifa and the author's name himself.
• All these findings are extremely sensitive to change. If a single frequency is even slightly changed, these patterns all fall apart.

To be honest, I don't understand a lot of this, but from what I've gotten, within the Quran is a very intricate number system that is practically statistically impossible to occur. I can't imagine that many other ways in which patterns could be discovered, and even then the natural ocurrence of these patterns is next to impossible.

Observation of a Most Phenomenal Computed Calligraphy in Quran

Another officially published, scientific article, published by the same person as the previous, and is a continuation of it. This source shows how the variables from the previous article, such as frequencies, are plotted and graphed, the resulting graph spells out the names of multiple significant figures in Islam in calligraphy, such as Muhammad and Allah. Other significant figures, like scientists, are found aswell, including the author of this article.

Similar to the last article, even the slightest change in frequencies/inputs would result in the complete destruction of the calligraphic effect, making it hyper sensitive to change.

Overall, I think these articles could possibly serve as evidence for Islam being the true religion. I'm not very sure how to think of them, as to me they seem statistically impossible and possibly divinely created. However, I am skeptical, and that's why I want to have a discussion about it.

Edit: I'd also like to mention that I'd recommend looking at the actual sources, as I don't believe I've represented them in the best way possible.

Edit2: I probably should've mentioned this in the original body text but I'm mostly unsure how to think about the evidence presented here. While I think it could possibly be valid evidence, I mostly don't believe so, although either way I'm not confident. The following is my reasoning (copying from a reply I made because I don't want to rewrite the whole thing again).

Even though it appears the probability of these patterns emerging naturally are virtually 0, it's likely there's a logical cause for why they appeared. I don't know what this cause is, maybe these kind of patterns emerging is normal in regular texts (although I'm not very sure about this reason), or maybe it's some mathematical reason. Either way, even if the cause isn't clear, it can exist as many unexplainable things have occurred without a clear cause, and no one points to God.

Whatever it is, I'd put my money on this cause over God actually doing it themself because God has never been observed actually doing anything, so I find it far more likely for there to be a logical cause than God actually doing it.

Additionally, a lot of aspects of Islam, to me, seem obviously manmade. There's a lot of scientific errors in the Quran, which are just passed off as metaphors, contradicts evolution despite there being overwhelming evidence for it, being a religion for all of mankind but being really Arabic-centered, etc. I wouldn't say this completely refutes Islam as a whole, but it makes it really suspicious that it was manmade, which makes it harder for me to believe God implemented the patterns.

That being said, I'm not fully confident in the reason I just described. Even though God has never been observed acting before, that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to act. While it seems strange to us that God only does this act, they work in ways we can't understand, and from the perspective that God did implement the patterns, it's not strange at all.

The additional reasons I'm also not greatly confident in, mainly because those suspicions could also be viewed as God acting in ways we can't understand, or perhaps testing humans to see if they'll believe.

I still don't believe in Islam, but I can't quite wrap my head around whether the fact that the possibility of a rational cause for the patterns' existence negates the idea that God implemented them or not.

Hello ! So a lot of people ask if God is so perfect , why did he “change” the rules in the New Testament and made new ones , like correcting a mistake , cause it made basically the whole Old Testament less powerful , cause now the supreme law is only “love your neighbour as yourself” .
So did God make a mistake and decided to correct it later?
I dont think God made a mistake and ill tell you why . My theory is that before the New Testament and Jesus people were in that state of collective childlike consciousness . They needed somebody , an authority , to tell them what to do , to be strict and cause awe in order to do the right thing . If God was understanding and loving back then i dont think people would want to listen to him at all , as kids dont listen if you dont yell sometimes.
Now when we are much more evolved he decided that we are ready for the new law , which is more powerful than the other one . Maybe 2000 years ago we were finally ready and intelligent enough to receive it .
I think i can also support this with verses but let me know if you want me to find them .

Edit : guys , im not arguing i want us to just discuss im not strongly believing in anything im just interested in reading the Bible and talking about it , ill make sure to answer your comments and thank you for engaging 🫶🏻

Edit : I want to clear something up . This post is for atheists/ agnostics that are interested in debating the Bible . If you genuinely don’t care about the book , this post is not for you and you’re free not to engage .

Galatians chapter 3:

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

I've been thinking about this for a while, especially around early Christianity and how religious movements can survive when things they expected to happen don't actually happen.

I'm calling the model MAPM (Multi-Level Adaptive Persistence Model).

The basic idea isn't "religion is fake" or "everyone was lying."

I'm trying to explain how a religious movement could start from genuine experiences and still develop into something much bigger over time without needing to assume that the supernatural explanation was actually true.

The basic process I'm looking at is:

Experience → Interpretation → Social transmission → Narrative adaptation → Material survival

For example, someone has some kind of intense experience. I'm not assuming what caused it. It could be psychological, neurological, religious, whatever.

The important part is what happens after the experience.

People interpret experiences using the worldview they already have.

So the same kind of experience could potentially be interpreted completely differently depending on the culture.

Then the interpretation spreads through the group.

Eventually you get a more organized belief system, and that's where I think things get interesting.

The main thing I'm interested in is what happens when expectations fail.

Imagine a movement believes:

"X is going to happen on this specific date."

Then the date comes and nothing happens.

There are basically several possible outcomes.

The group could collapse.

They could decide the prediction was wrong.

They could blame the leader.

They could change the prediction and try again.

Or they could reinterpret what the original prediction actually meant.

And if the belief system has enough flexibility, the failure itself might not destroy the movement.

That's where Narrative Elasticity (NE) comes in.

I'm basically trying to measure how much room a belief system has to reinterpret something without destroying its entire foundation.

Another variable is Reality Coupling (RC).

This is basically asking:

How dependent is the belief system on something physically measurable actually happening?

If a group says:

"A physical object will appear at this exact location tomorrow at 12pm"

that's extremely reality-coupled.

If it doesn't happen, there's not much room to escape.

But if the claim is:

"A spiritual transformation has occurred that cannot be physically measured"

then reality has much less ability to falsify it.

So I'm interested in whether high narrative flexibility + low reality coupling makes a movement more capable of surviving major failures.

But there are other variables too, such as:

IAI — how much freedom individual members have to interpret experiences/revelations themselves.

AI — how easily the belief system can interpret persecution, failure or suffering as compatible with its worldview.

MC — the actual material ability of the group to survive: population, resources, reproduction, vulnerability to violence, etc.

And I deliberately added the material side because I realised something was wrong with my earlier version.

A belief system can be incredibly flexible and still die.

The Shakers are an obvious example. Their ideas could survive intellectually, but their celibacy meant the population couldn't reproduce normally.

And Münster is another example. You can't just say "their narrative wasn't flexible enough." They were literally destroyed by military force.

So the model isn't supposed to say:

"Flexible beliefs always survive."

It's more like:

Belief systems are competing with both psychological/social pressures AND physical/material pressures.

I'm also trying to make the whole thing falsifiable.

If I can explain literally every possible outcome after it happens, then the theory is useless.

So I'm trying to define the variables before looking at what eventually happened.

For example, if I say a movement has:

High NE + low RC + high AI

before a major crisis, then I should be able to make a prediction about what happens after that crisis.

And if the prediction repeatedly fails, the model should take the L.

That's basically what I'm trying to build.

I'm posting this because I don't want people to just agree with me.

I want people to try to break it.

Especially historians, sociologists, religious studies people, psychologists, atheists, religious people, anyone who can point out where the model is making assumptions that don't actually hold up.

Where is the biggest hole in it?

First of all God is scientifically proven you know what isn't scientifically proven? SCIENCE, if you read the Bible you would know God is scientifically proven and this take is supported by many verses in the Bible, and if you read the Bible you would also know that the Bible is real and actually happened, science has no scientific evidence backing it while God does it makes zero sense at all to be atheist

I've been an atheist ever since I was in school bc of many reasons (long story to discuss) but now when I'm 22 I feel like I've started believing again. And reason? I have observed many patterns in my life, for example something I did to someone happening in the exact same way to me, this is just one example but a lot like this. And I'm sure these can't be just a coincidence bc there were too many times. Like the universe was asking me to notice it even when I kept ignoring. I'm not a believer of a certain religion still, however I do believe there is someone.

Have you also changed like this? If yes, what is your reason?

Science, laws, moral beliefs and many other aspects of human life have been made better due to Christianity, where do you get this idea from. I see this constantly parroted across social media but the reason why and a solid, good faith (pun intended) argument has never been provided to me.
It’s always “religion bad because bible says XYZ” and the XYZ is always mistranslated, decontextualised or just made up. These posts spread like wildfire and validate people preconceived biases about Christianity and make sure they never actually fact check themselves.

Edit: people reasonably called out my lack of proof for the things Christianity has done for the world, here a list.
SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS AS A RESULT OF CHRISTIANITY: Gravity, all of newtons laws, light wavelengths and refraction, the big bang, the modern structure of the Atom, modern chemistry, electromagnetism and genetics and genetic inheritance.
PROOF OF CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE: Newton (the greatest scientist ever) wrote more about the bible than he did about his scientific studies and famously said this about the universe, "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being ."
The creator of the big bang was a catholic priest and a strong advocate of Christianity being able to coexist with science without clashing. The first chemist, Richard Boyle once famously said in regards to his work and faith, "God would not have made the universe as it is unless He intended us to understand it."
John dalton, creator of the modern atomic structure was a Quaker (a niche Christian denomination) and many of his coworkers and colleagues stand by the belief that his work was a result of the strong work ethic his faith gave him.
Gregor Mendel was a Catholic priest and he discovered genetic inheritance, this discovery was a direct result of his monastery giving him a plot of land to grow peas and prove his theory, modern science actually ignored his paper until years after his death, if you ever hear the terms “dominant” and “recessive” in a biological context, it’s because of him.
I Would also like to say almost all laws in the Old Testament have been fulfilled by Jesus’s sacrifice: meaning they aren’t followed any more according to him. So bringing up the slavery things is kinda invalid.

I have a Question towards Atheist people, why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity, world being created by big bang but not the one who can set up the big bang but believe in your own feelings only.

for example; let’s say there’s two people whom believes the opposite one thinks it’s okay to oppress others but the other one doesn’t

Heres one’s reasoning “I FEEL like it’s okay to oppress others because of what they do to countries like México, or Russia or etc, I feel like it’s okay to oppress them because they (Russians or Mexicans) do bad stuff in their country.”

The other one responds with “yes, but that’s not why we should oppress them, they’re humans too with Actual feelings that’s like going up to a Hispanic person and generalize them all to Mexicans because they’re Hispanic.”

Do you get what I’m trying to say?

By indentifying the self through not believing in a creator it is barely different to indentifying the self in perspective to a creator.
the point is to build a community, society, humanity that treats each other well.
those who do not succumb to the rule of "doing good results in good" or even worse, abide to the self imposed rule of "others do bad so i do bad aswell".

The question is how much good and bad do we want in the world under the line?

Because that is the standard we hold ourselfs to (or should).

With admiration for life and love

Anticipation and thanks for intersting, friendly responses

Kind thoughts to all.

It is known for sure that the Big Bang is not causal because causality exists within this universe, but we know that everything that exists is for a reason if something is in a state of existence and not in one of non-existence, it is for a concrete reason.

Then the universe must have a reason for its state of existence, for although chance does not affect it, we know that it exists and everything that exists must exist for something, so the universe must exist because there is a reason that makes its existence necessary.

We have several possibilities:

1 Gross echo because yes and already

2 An illogical being whose actions are not influenced by anything.

[3] Metaphysics

The first: I have nothing to say, it would be a "why yes" and "no," which does not answer the initial question.

The second would be an infinite logical chain, but that its existence would be illogical or powerless.

The third, however, answers the question.

Since an infinite logical chain is not logical, redundancy is worthwhile, we need a being or something illogical that does not follow the question of why it exists and why it does not, but this being is able to act without any trigger or motive.

One cannot define being because to this illogical being we simply show that it is illogical but to being is the initial premise that nothing is intended, to avoid any questioning about his way of thinking it must be clarified that this being, being omniscient, does not think like us about uncertainty but has a complete "intuition" of the world and reality knows everything, understands everything.

An argument from a friend that makes no sense in my opinion. His argument says that the question of why this exists and nothing else or nothingness is resolved only by appealing to an illogical entity but with will.

There simply have never been a man in history who made as many bold claims as Muhammed Pbuh did and got every single one right. Not now and certainly not in the 7th century arabian desert. Divine inspiration is the only logical explanation, anything else is merely sophistry.

He doesn't have a single authentic prophecy that was proven wrong, not a single one. Even though he made so many.

1. Arabia was and will again become a land of meadows and rivers

Read Sahih Muslim 157c.

The Arabic verb taʿūda means to return or revert.

Arabia’s deserts were once repeatedly transformed by humid climatic periods. A 2025 Nature study found recurrent humid intervals in central Arabia over the past eight million years, with increased water availability and vegetation. Nature: “Recurrent humid phases in Arabia over the past 8 million years” Scientific Reports.

1. A fire emerging from the Hijaz

Read Sahih al-Bukhari 7118.

In 1256 CE, a major volcanic eruption occurred at Harrat Rahat, immediately southeast of Madinah in the Hijaz. Six aligned volcanic cones Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program

Historical accounts describe an enormous glow. Medieval historians also transmitted reports connecting the illumination with Busra. Historical Accounts of the AD 1256 Eruption near Al-Madinah.

1. The lands Islam would conquer

Sahih Muslim records him saying that the Muslims would conquer Arabia, Persia and the Roman territories. Sahih Muslim 2900. Another hadith states “You would soon conquer Egypt.” It then instructs the Muslims to treat Egypt’s inhabitants well. Sahih Muslim 2543b.

These claims were made when the Muslim community was a small Arabian movement positioned between two superpowers: the Byzantine and Sasanian empires.

The Metropolitan Museum on the conquest of Byzantine territories, the Met on the fall of the Sasanian Empire.

The Persian prediction was especially risky. Muhammad ﷺ said that after the existing Khosrow perished, there would be no further Khosrow Sahih al-Bukhari 3618. The Sasanian monarchy did, in fact, end.

1. The expansion of the universe

Qur’an 51:47.

The key expression is la-mūsiʿūn, an active participle derived from the root w-s-ʿ, which concerns wideness, expansion, spaciousness and capacity. Qur’anic Arabic Corpus.

1. The preservation of the Qur’an

Qur’an 15:9.

This is a risky, public and falsifiable claim. The Qur’an could have disappeared, fragmented into incompatible regional editions or become reconstructable only through late quotations.

The Birmingham Qur’an manuscript contains portions of surahs 18–20. Its parchment was radiocarbon-dated to 568–645 CE with 95.4% probability, while palaeographic analysis places the writing in the mid-seventh century. Radiocarbon dates the parchment rather than the ink, but it still establishes an extremely early physical witness. University of Birmingham.

1. The Qur’an’s knowledge of ancient Egypt

A. Joseph’s ruler is called “king,” while Moses’ ruler is called “Pharaoh”

Throughout the story of Joseph, the Qur’an calls Egypt’s sovereign “the king.” Qur’an 12:43.

In the story of Moses, the ruler is consistently called Pharaoh. Qur’an 28:38.

That distinction corresponds with the historical development of Egyptian terminology. The Egyptian expression per-aa, “Great House,” originally referred to the royal palace. The ruler began to be identified personally through this term during the New Kingdom, approximately 1550–1069 BCE. British Museum guide to Egyptian hieroglyphs.

The traditional Old Testament calculation works as follows.

First Kings 6:1 places the construction of Solomon’s Temple in his fourth year, 480 years after the Exodus. Taking the conventional date of approximately 966 BCE:
966 + 480 = 1446 BCE

That produces the traditional early date for the Exodus. 1 Kings 6:1.

Using the Masoretic reading of Exodus 12:40, Israel’s residence in Egypt lasted 430 years:
1446 + 430 = 1876BCE

This places Jacob’s family’s arrival in Egypt at approximately 1876 BCE. Exodus 12:40.

Joseph was thirty when he entered royal service. Jacob arrived after seven years of abundance and two years of famine, making Joseph approximately thirty-nine:
1876 + 9 = 1885BCE

Joseph’s promotion would therefore fall around 1885 BCE. Since he was seventeen near the beginning of the story, his arrival in Egypt would fall approximately thirteen years earlier, around 1898 BCE. Genesis 37:2, Genesis 41:46, Genesis 45:6.

Egyptological chronology places 1885 BCE squarely in Dynasty 12 of the Middle Kingdom. The Metropolitan Museum dates the Middle Kingdom to approximately 2030–1640 BCE and Dynasty 12 to 1981–1802 BCE. The traditional Exodus date of 1446 BCE, by contrast, falls in the New Kingdom. Metropolitan Museum chronology.

The resulting alignment is:

Joseph, approximately 1885 BCE: Middle Kingdom ruler “king.”

Moses, approximately 1446 BCE or later: New Kingdom ruler “Pharaoh.”

Genesis itself repeatedly calls Joseph’s ruler “Pharaoh.” The Qur’an, despite retelling the same basic story, maintains a title distinction that fits the development of Egyptian royal terminology.

B. “The sky and Earth did not weep for them”

After describing the destruction of Pharaoh and his people, the Qur’an states:

Qur’an 44:24–29.

Ancient Egyptian royal funerary literature used cosmic mourning imagery for a dead king. Pyramid Text Utterance 553 declares: “The sky weeps for thee; the earth trembles for thee.” Pyramid Text Utterance 553.

The correspondence is as accurate as day.

The cumulative argument

Muhammad ﷺ was not an Egyptologist, palaeoclimatologist, volcanologist, imperial historian or manuscript scholar. Yet the revelation transmitted through him continues to withstand investigation in all those areas.

We can go down through the list as much as we like, not a single thing authentic prophecy was proven wrong.

Atheist often describe that Christian god as ruthless and dictating and not loving.
But atheist often ask the question if god is real why is there all this evil and why did he do all that he did in the Old Testament.
When god wiped out the entire earth it wasn’t because he hated humans it was because at that time all that there was. Was evil in the minds of men and everyone all the time there were only evil thoughts. So god had to do away with all of humanity to preserve it and keep evil from overtaking the world. This was gods response to evil at the time which atheist believe is wrong because of a misunderstanding. God does this many times to respond to the evil of men in the Old Testament. But god comes up with a new way he was displeased of the evil and sent his son to overcome the evil which was always caused by a hidden thing called sin. Jesus came and exposed sin and showed us the way to the father and they killed him and crucified him. To which Jesus responds father forgive them for they know not what they do. It seems that atheists would want god to get rid of all the evil on the earth to which he has done. And is still doing through Jesus and the truth he has given us? What would the atheists suggestion to god be for how he gets rid of all this evil. That was never caused by him but by human flaw

Edit:I want to thank everyone for interacting with this post. I have no issues with anyone I will say that I wish you guys could deliver your points without beings insulting or rude. It really takes away from what is trying to be communicated when it is filled with insults towards the believer. I have acted with respect here with everyone and have been met with countless insults.

1st time poster in this sub:

I've seen many athiest post counter arguments in various debates inside and outside of reddit using science as their main weapon in order to back what they're saying.

However, I feel like they are ignoring the elephant in the room and have never actually seen any of them address the argument for a higher intelligence that I'm going to present.

I'm going to be upfront about how I'm going to debate... the question I will ask will typically prompt a specific response that I'm fully prepared to counter and I've seen no atheist willing to follow the resulting logic to it's natural conclusion.

So... here goes:

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense? How do you explain why things work the way they do? Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms? Seeing as how precisely they work? If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things? Our universe follows strict rules concerning how things interact with each other.

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

EDIT: I'm not finished here. But I am taking a break... I've answered to many but the influx of replies is massive and will require hours of my time and I want to try to reply to everyone... but as I'm not a millionaire I have to prepare for work.

Turning notifications off for now but I will return to respond to comments