Looking to pass time at work by having a friendly discussion/debate on religion. My position is I am a gnostic atheist which claims to "know" that god doesn't exist. I argue for naturalism and determinism as explanations for how we exist and got to this moment in time.

My noble cause in life: To believe in the most truths and the least amount of lies as possible in life. I want to only believe in what is true in reality. There is no benefit to believing in a lie or using old outdated information to form your worldview.

My position is that we have enough knowledge today to say objectively whether a god exists or not. The gaps are shrinking and there is simply no more room for god to exist. In the past the arguments were stronger, but as we learned it becomes less possible and as time goes on it becomes more and more of a possibility fallacy to believe in god. Science will continue to shrink the gaps in the believe of god.

For me its important to pick apart what is true and untrue in a religion. The organization and the people in it are real, but supernatural claims, god claims, soul claims, and after-life claims are false.

Some facts I would include in my worldview: universe is 14 billion years old, Earth is 4.5 billions years old. Life began randomly and evolved on Earth. Life began 3 billion years ago on Earth. Humans evolved 300K years ago and at one point there were 8 other ancient mankind species and some of them co-existed beside us. Now its just us: homosapiens.

I believe using a lot of the facts of today does disprove religious claims; especially religions that have conflicting data in their creation stories. The creation stories in any religion are the "proof" and the set of facts you have to adhere to if that is how you "know" god. I.E if you take the Garden of Eden as a literal story then evolution disproves that story as possible.

If you are agnostic I'll try to push you towards gnostic atheism. For everyone I usually will ask at some point when does naturalism end and your supernatural begin?

My argument is that if I can get from modern day (now) back to the big bang with naturalism then that proves my theory that god does not exist. I hope your argument is that god exists in reality, because if it doesn't then why assume its anything more than your imagination or a fictional character we created?

Basically the butterfly effect states that small chances in actions can lead to very different outcomes even if the vaitables are very small(ex the 3 body problem or the 2 pendulum problem).

Now the thing is that in a way,that would be applied to any interaction of god with the universe. Basically, his creation of the universe,his desgin for everything in the universe create certain outcomes that may be different if he designed anything different or if he added anything or didn't add anything

Along with that,the butterfly effect would be applied every time he interacts with the universe,or in our case,with humans as him not interacting in certain cases would result in different outcomes for humanity in the future

This would also be applied in the concept of individualism applied to souls as that means that God chooses your birth circumstances from the place and time,to literally your genetic code and family,along with envoierment, just by choosing the baby in which your soul will be placed

Taking all that into consideration, along the fact that God is all knowing, meaning he knows everything that will happen and can happen,based on said interactions in our world,it's rather hard to see how god even with one interaction in our universe could actually allow us to really have free will due to the butterfly effect and his omniscience

Greetings all.

This is a response to the discussion found here.

The PoE is an old argument against a specific version of god. That god possesses the tri-omnis of potency, knowledge, and presence along with being perfectly good. My summation is extremely brief and does gloss over the details that we could nitpick about such as omnipotency really describes the fully scope of the tri-omnis, omniscience in itself creates problems for theism, or how there are significant and necessary details that should be discussed depending on how robust of an examination we want to make. I strongly suggest checking this link out if you want to get a more complete picture.

This is unambiguously the Judeo-Christian god of the Bible if that isn't clear.

What I've noticed, and the reason for me adding to this topic, is that the subject of good and evil are important aspects of the PoE. I would argue that it is entirely dependent on these elements.

Definitions are important here and in the linked discussion, this was what I noticed most. OP did not define those terms and it wasn't really explored to any significant degree in the following conversations. So, without any more wandering exposition:

What is Evil?

Evil, as it is used in the PoE is simply needless suffering. Use of the word evil can impart agency on the act, which isn't necessary when it comes to needless suffering. Should the tri-omni god of the PoE, who is perfectly good, be faced with the prospect of needless suffering existing, that entity should, as reason follows it, commit to reducing and eliminating needless suffering.

By removing all of the connotations associated with the word "evil", we see the PoE in the light I believe it was intended to be cast in; a deity with the power to stop needless suffering but in its contradiction, cannot for reasons that theism has yet, in my opinion, to sufficiently address.

While this definition does not provide a description of what good is, it doesn't need to within the PoE. What we can say, with conviction, is that a deity that possesses any iteration of perfection of morality, goodness, or compassion (as often stated by theists of the Christian dogma), it stands to reason that this being would view needless suffering as being, well, needless, and would do what they could (which is a lot) to stop it from occurring. With this understanding, we can place "good" or "goodness" within the confines of this intersection in a Venn diagram. It isn't fully defined, but we have enough that it is not an amorphous fog where the semantics disrupt the discussion.

What is a Theist to do?

This is the other part of the linked discussion that needs to have some light thrown on it.

Alvin Plantinga's free will defense addresses only one aspect of needless suffering - that which is experienced and created by human existence. It does not address the needless suffering of animals, nor does it solve for cataclysmic events like tsunamis, earthquakes, plagues, floods, etc. If you dive into his works deeper, his solutions for natural disasters are demons. No, really, that's a hypothetical he floated.

The other defense I've seen wielded against the deductive PoE is that god works in mysterious ways. That acts that allow needless suffering to persist are necessary so that a greater good (being the reduction of needless suffering of an equal or greater degree) can transpire in the future. While this is a somewhat compelling defense, it is basically appealing to faith as a solution for why needless suffering exists.

In my opinion, the free will defense fails on two fronts. It doesn't address natural evil sufficiently (for the reasons stated above), and it ignores a key facet of god's omnipotence; the ability to create beings with true free will that do not choose to commit evil acts. I mean, omnipotence isn't omnipotence if you can't do things that are doable.

That leaves theists with a sticky proposition. They can become atheists (not likely), create convoluted theodices (see Plantinga's refutation of the PoE, among others), or bite the bullet. What do I mean by that? Well, Calvinists do have a solution for the PoE, which is yes, evil exists, and yes, it's all god's fault, except we deserve it. All the suffering belongs to us because we suck.

My view of the deductive PoE is that it successfully creates a problem that theists have yet to address. Creating a being that possesses herculean power becomes more and more difficult to reconcile with reality in equal degree to how extreme those powers are. Omnipotence, being pretty much the most extreme degree you can go presents a deity that is so powerful that there is no limit to what they should be capable of. Defending why needless suffering exists or even positing that it must exist because we exist is the most extreme case of victim blaming, by the victim, that you could ask for.

One of the things western Christians will often hear from Atheists (particually politically liberal atheists who seem, at least so far as l can tell, to make up the standing majority of the atheist community) is that Christianity advovtes left-wing values and policies or even that "Jesus was a Socialist" and as such Christians should on the basis of their religion support left-wing policies and political parties.

On the other hand however many western Christians will also hear from Atheists (sometimes amazingly enough from the SAME atheist) that Christianity is a racist, fascistic, homophobic, genocidal, imperialist ideology founded on the ethics of bronze age slave socieites and is responsible for the affirmation and persistance of class heirachies in the west and (at the least) a large number of the imperialist wars/genocides throughout western history.

So l guess my question would be which do you think is true??

Either Christianity lS a progressive ideology (and thus Christians would be morally obligated to support progressive / left-wing causes) or it is not a Christian's disagreement with any given progressive or left-wing cause/party cannot be held as instance of hypocracy/contradiction on the part of the conservative christian.

Now some of you may respond to this dichotomy reasonably by saying something along the lines of"lts complicated/nuanced" pointing to differences between the old and new testatment, Jesus teachings on various specific issues ect and that's fine. BUT if it lS "complicated"/"nuanced" would not this complexity/nuance also cut against declarative absolutist statements like "Christianity advocates progressivism" or "Jesus was a Socialist" rendering them over simplifications ???

Will be curious to read your thoughts bellow!

Lately, I have been watching the Dan Mcclellan (a scholar of the bible) videos and they are definitely awesome because they contain objective information and analysis explained in a very straightforward way. His videos definitely contain a lot of evidence that debunk in many ways the basis of the modern Christianity but now I wonder if someone has made the effort to compile all of this information in a single source.

This is more of a parody of the pascal wager, but I hope it can provoke thoughts for certain theists.

Consider, a trans person experiences dysphoria from their body mismatching their sense of self, or soul if you will. If Jesus exists and a trans person rejects Jesus, they go to hell as any other person and suffer for eternity. If a trans person accepts Jesus, they suffer dysphoria on earth, then when they die, they are re-embodied in a mismatched body again in heaven, and suffer dysphoria for eternity. However, if there is no god, a trans person's suffering is finite as they can transition on earth freely, then when they die there is no more suffering. Therefore, it is better for a trans person to be atheist.

The cosmological argument essentially is that the universe is highly tuned and for whatever reason it couldn't just formed that way through it's own nature, and for other reasons the multiverse is impossible so there's no way for our loss to be one iteration of a generative formula, for reasons like probability.

A deity isn't really suggested from this set of conditions. They say intention is important but intention is secondary to ability, so what's necessary truly is something that has the nature to produce the world.

For comparison, look at the way stars form and burst. I don't know if they have uniform patterns of burst direction when they do burst or if they're like snowflakes, but they do burst. Perhaps a "star" burst and the world came from that.

I see theists make this argument a lot and it's never made a lot of sense to me. They say that if the gospels all got every detail the same, it would point to them colluding and make it seem more likely the stories were all made up. But that doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that stories that get significantly important details correct make them more likely to be true. One of the things that's always stuck out to me is that only one of the gospels mentions that the dead rose from their graves and walked around Jerusalem. This seems like a HUGE event that would even overshadow the resurrection of Jesus, yet only one gospel writer bothers to mention it. This, to me, makes it seem entirely more fictional.

0.5% of living organisms suffer psychologically and 99.5% don't. Even the 0.5 of the living organisms don't suffer psychologically from birth till death, their lives are a mixture from happiness + suffering and usually happiness > suffering and they are also supported by stress-induced analgesia system that is activated during predation etc ...

99% of the bacterial species aren't harmful, just 1%, and we have antibiotics for them.

5% of children are born with genetic defects, 95% aren't.

The moments of happy stable earth since the appearance of conscious life >>>> the moments of volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, asteroid impacts, ....

Why the fundamental laws of this universe weren't different so that it can result in more and more and more suffering??

Why not 70% of living organisms that suffer psychologically and only 30% don't?

Why not 50% of children born with genetic defects and 50% without??

Why stress-induced analgesia instead of sensing the highest amount of pain without suppression??

Why not 30% of harmful bacterial species and 70% not causing harm?

Probabilistically, if naturalism is true and there is no caring force behind existence, then we should expect a much more terrible universe, but if there is a caring force behind existence we would expect at least a universe in which good > than evil even slightly, the universe is indeed dominated by good, the amount of good far exceeds the amount of evil as demonstrated above, so the existence of a caring force behind existence is much more probable, theism is still much more probable than atheism.

Note: it is enough to show that a caring force behind existence exists to refute atheism/naturalism, even if this force doesn't have omni-attributes.

Secular humanist here.

Debates between atheism and theism are a waste of time.

Theism, independent of Christianity or Islam or an actual religion is a red herring.

The intention of the apologists is to distract and deceive.

Abrahamic religion is indefensible logically, scientifically or morally.

“Theism” however, allows the religious to battle in easier terrain.

The cosmological argument and other apologetics don’t rely on religious texts. They exist in a theoretical zone where definitions change and there is no firm evidence to refute or defend.

But the scripture prohibiting wearing two types of fabric as well as many other archaic and immoral writings is there in black and white,… and clearly really stupid.

So that’s why the debate should not be theism vs atheism but secularism vs theocracy.

Wanted to keep it short and sweet, even at the risk of being glib

Cheers

I have a question for atheists. You claim that religions, gods, or metaphysical concepts do not exist, and you believe such things are as real as a fairy tale. Here’s my question: What makes you so certain that we’re not living in a fairy tale? Think about it—you were born as person X, doing job Y, with emotions and thoughts. You exist in the Solar System within the Milky Way galaxy, on a planet called Earth. Doesn't this sound even more fascinating than a fairy tale? None of these things had to exist. The universe could have not existed; you could have not existed, and so on.

Additionally, I’d like to ask about your belief in nothingness after death—the idea that you will return to what you were before birth. If there was nothing before you were born, what happened for you to come into existence? And what gives you the confidence that there is no same or different process after death?

First of all let me state that I have respect for the healthy skepticism of an agnostic or atheist, because there's a lot of things that do not make sense in the world. Even as a Christian theist, I struggle with certain aspects of what I believe, because it definitely does not adhere to logic and reason, or what makes sense to me on a logical level subjectively.

That being said, my question is "How can something come from nothing?" This idea of The Big Bang creating everything doesn't make sense- it certainly does not explain the complexities of the universe. The idea of Spontaneous Generation doesn't make sense- In order for something to exist, there had to be something that made that thing, even bacteria from a basic molecular or atomic level.

But let's focus on our Solar System in the Milky Way. I will dispense with theology.

But look at planet Earth. We are the 3rd planet from our Sun, and we are perfectly positioned far away enough from the Sun so that we don't burn to a crisp (The average temperature on Mercury is 333°F - 800°F, with little to no oxygen, and a thin atmosphere that does not protect it against asteroids. Venus's average temperature is 867°F, is mostly carbon dioxide, has crushing pressure that no human would survive, and rains sulfuric acid), but close enough that we don't freeze to death (Looking at you gas giants and Mars).

Our planet is on a perfect orbit that ensures that we don't freeze to death or burn to death, and that we have seasons.

We have the perfect ratio of breathable air- 76% Nitrogen, 23% Oxygen, and trace gases. The rest of the atmosphere is on different planets in our system is mostly carbon dioxide, hydrogen, methane, and too much nitrogen- Non-survivable conditions.

The average temperature in outer space is -455°F. We would turn into ice sculptures in outer space.

When you look at the extreme conditions of outer space, and the inhabitable conditions about our space, and then you look at Earth, and recognize the extraordinary and pretty much miraculous habitable living conditions on Earth, how can one logically make the intelligent argument that there is no intelligent design and that everything occurred due to a "Big Bang" and spontaneous generation?

Also look at how varied and dynamic Earth's wildlife is and the different biomes that exist on Earth. Everywhere else in our Solar System is either a desolate deserts with uninhabitable conditions, or gas giants that are absolutely freezing with no surface area and violent storms at their surface. Why is Earth so different?

You know what's also mind-blowing? If you live to 80, your heart will a beat 2.85 - 3 Billion times. Isn't that crazy?

There are so many things that point to intelligent design.

What's a good rebuttal against this?

This post is in response to people who claim there is no evidence of God.

Because a universe with an atom is more likely to be designed by a God than a universe without an atom, the atom is evidence that God exists.

Part 1 - What is evidence?

Evidence is any fact which tends to make a proposition more likely true. Evidence does not need to constitute proof itself. It doesn't not need to be completely reliable to be evidence. An alternative explanation for the evidence does not necessarily render it non-evidence. Only if those listed problems are in extreme is it rendered non-evidence (for example, if we know the proposition is false for other reasons, the source is completely unreliable, the alternative explanation is clearly preferred, etc.)

For example, let's say Ace claims Zed was seen fleeing a crime scene. This is a very traditional example of evidence. Yet, not everyone fleeing crime scene is necessarily guilty, eye witnesses can be wrong, and there could be other reasons to flee a crime scene. Evidence doesn't have to be proof, it doesn't have to be perfectly reliable, and it can potentially have other explanations and still be evidence.

Part 2 - The atom is evidence of God.

Consider the strong atomic force, for example. This seems to exists almost solely for atoms to be possible. If we considered a universe with atoms and a universe without any such thing, the former appears more likely designed than the latter. Thus, the atom is evidence of design.

Consider if we had a supercomputer which allowed users to completely design rules of a hypothetical universe from scratch. Now we draft two teams, one is a thousand of humanity's greatest thinkers, scientists, and engineers, and the other is a team of a thousand cats which presumably will walk on the keyboards on occasion.

Now we come back a year later and look at the two universes. One universe has substantial bodies similar to matter, and the other is gibberish with nothing happening in it. I contend that anyone could guess correctly which one was made by the engineers and which one the cats. Thus, we see a universe with an atom is more likely to be designed than one without it.

Thus the atom is objectively evidence of God.

She is, i met her, no heaven or hell either, it's just a different dimension we can't understand yet, and what looked like "god" was a source to all electric life . . . that being said she appeared to be atheist, which makes satanists her "chosen" people or whatever, revelations is not the final book of the christian bible, the satanic bible is,

cheers

The below is based on my anecdotal experiences interacting with this sub. Many atheists will say that atheists are not a monolith. And yet, the vast majority of interactions on this sub re:

• Metaphysics
• Morality
• Science
• Consciousness
• Qualia/Subjectivity
• Hot-button social issues

highlight that most atheists (at least on this sub) have essentially the same position on every issue.

Most atheists here:

• Are metaphysical materialists/naturalists (if they're even able or willing to consider their own metaphysical positions).
• Are moral relativists who see morality as evolved social/behavioral dynamics with no transcendent source.
• Are committed to scientific methodology as the only (or best) means for discerning truth.
• Are adamant that consciousness is emergent from brain activity and nothing more.
• Are either uninterested in qualia or dismissive of qualia as merely emergent from brain activity and see external reality as self-evidently existent.
• Are pro-choice, pro-LGBT, pro-vaccine, pro-CO2 reduction regulations, Democrats, etc.

So, allowing for a few exceptions, at what point are we justified in considering this community (at least of this sub, if not atheism more broadly) as constituting a monolith and beholden to or captured by an ideology?

...and they (theists, and even some atheists and agnostics) say that Plantinga was the one who defeated it.

As a recap, the Logical Problem of Evil (LPOE) basically says:

1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

2. Evil exists.

3. These propositions are logically incompatible.

So Plantinga basically argues:

1. It's possible that creating creatures with genuine free will was a greater good.

2. Such free will necessarily entails the possibility of evil.

3. Therefore, God and evil can logically coexist.

Throw in some additional stuff about "Transworld Depravity" (which comes across as nonsense to me).

But it appears to me that Plantinga's "solution" is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance, and doesn't actually "defeat" anything.

Am I missing something here?

Do you agree with the theists on this particular issue?

Lawrence Anthony, a conservationist, had a close freindship with a herd of elephant at his game reserve in Africa. He had rescued and rehabilitated them and over time, they developed a trust.

Lawrence Anthony died in 2012. Two days after the elephant herd led by the matriarch traveled 12 miles to his home. They stayed there for two days, mourning as they do their dead.

The elephants had no material way of knowing about Lawrence's passing. There were no phone call, no messages, and no visible signs for them.

After this, the elephants returned again exactly one year later.

https://www.cbc.ca/strombo/news/saying-goodbye-elephants-hold-apparent-vigil-to-mourn-their-human-friend.ht

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/mind-blowing-power-of-love-20100925-15rl7.html

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

This is going to be a rather lengthy post regarding this as I will be starting from scratch.

I will start with addressing the definitions:-

Omniscience - An attribute of All knowing which includes every proposition that is true about the past, present and future whilst not believing in any false propositions. Knowledge of hypothetical situations even if they never occurred. Knowledge about the said entity's own nature, existence and thoughts.

Free Will - The ability to make decisions intentionally without the influence of external factors.

What I will address in this post or thread? A critique on the paradoxes involving omniscience and my own arguments to resolve them.

What I will not be addressing in this post or thread? I will not provide reasons for the existence of an omniscient entity or God and free will as I am merely reflecting on the paradoxes involving them. I will not be addressing why a deity with the attribute of omniscience decided to create the world while knowing about the evil that will exist along with its creation.

I will start with the Omniscient paradox that is associated with Tarski's Indefinability Theorem. Tarski's indefinability Theorem - If you are dealing with a Language system "A". The truth of the statements associated with the language "A" cannot be defined by the language system itself and you would need an external language "A*" to know about it. Example - Consider a system in which a statement S says "This statement is false." If S is true, It contradict what it says. But again, S says it is false, so it must be true. If S is false, then what it says must be false but this would make S true. This creates a contradiction as S cannot be both true and false.

How is this associated with the omniscient paradox? Consider this statement U which says "An omniscient entity cannot know this statement" If the omniscient entity knows the statement "U" then "U" is true and the entity does not know about "U". A contradiction. If the omniscient entity does not know the statement "U" then "U" is true and the entity is not omniscient. A contradiction. This is a variant of the omniscient paradox.

This can be resolved in two ways:

1) U is not a meaningful statement.
Here is why, Consider the statement "This is both true and false", It is not a meaningful truth 
A meaningful statement should either be true or false and the statement "U" fails to satisfy this criteria.
2) The paradox is resolved once you view the language system A from another language A* to which an omniscient entity would have access to. The entity doesn't need to know if U is true or false, The entity just needs to know why U is not a meaningful statement which it would have access to.

Now I will move on to the paradox that is arises from both omniscience and free will. I will put forth two arguments. One by considering an omniscient entity only and the other by considering an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent entity.

Terms O(x) - "x is omniscient." K(x,p) - "x knows proposition p." F(p) - "p is a future event." D(p) - "p is determined fixed." W(p) - "p is a freely made choice." ¬W(p) - "p is not a freely made choice." ¬C(x) - "Not casually determined by x"

P1: O(x)→∀p(K(x,p)) - The omniscient entity X knows all propositions about the present, past and future. P2: ∀p(F(p)→K(x,p)) - The omniscient entity X knows all propositions regarding future. P3: ∀p(W(p)→¬D(p)) - For choices regarding the event P to be free, it must not be pre-determined or fixed already.

C: ∀p(F(p)→¬W(p)) - The future event is not a freely made choice as it was determined already.

My rebuttal #1 against the paradox where the entity is only omniscient.

P1: ∀x(F(x)→¬D(x)) - A free choice is not a pre-determined one. P2: O(x)↔∀t K(x,t) - An omniscient entity knows all propositions regarding past, present and future. P3: ∀x(K(x,t)→¬C(x)) - The knowledge of the omniscient entity at any time does not cause the event as the knowledge is gained by observation the event. P4: ∀x(K(x,t)→∃p(F(x,p)∧K(x,t)) - The omniscient entity knows all choices by observing them and knowing this choice made does not casually influence them. C: ∀x(F(x)∧O(x)→¬D(x)) - Omniscience and free will can coexist as events are not casually determined by the omniscient entity.

I'd like to explain this syllogism. Let us take a person named "White" is going to drink tea tomorrow morning. The omniscient paradox says that the omniscient entity knows that White will drink Tea and since the entity is never wrong, This piece of foreknowledge possessed by the entity dictates the event that White will drink tomorrow. This is what I would like to clarify, The omniscient entity knows of all future events and possible future events but this knowledge is gained by observed the future and hence does not casually determine.

I'd like to give another analogy, Let's say our White here possesses a device that allows him to peak at future events. He looks at the future through this device and now possesses knowledge about the future. Does White knowing the future event now dictate the future event? Absolutely not. It is the future event that gave White that particular knowledge about the future to begin with. Hence, Knowing the future does not casually influence the future in any way.

My rebuttal #2 where the entity is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient or just God as most definitions claim. I should have posted this in my previous thread but I failed to but here I go, I will give an argument for this supposed entity to be both within and beyond temporality.

Defining terms:- Omnipotence - The ability to do all that is possible without being bound by limitations Omnipresence - The ability to be present everywhere in space and time simultaneously in a way that finite things are not.

P1 - An Omnipotent entity can create or choose not to create anything at will. P2 - Creating time will bring a temporal sequence P3 - Creating a temporal sequence whilst being in a temporal sequence would lead to absurdities C - The entity must be beyond temporality.

This is my argument for the entity being atemporal and It can be temporal due to the other attribute "Omnipresent"

So Now, Here is my argument.

P1: God is an entity outside of temporality and views all of time simultaneously including the past (x), present (y) and future (z). P2: A person at the present (y) makes a choice or decision. P3: God's knowledge of the event at the time (y) occurs after the decision has been made from his observation from (z). Ie, God only knows the outcome after the decision has been made at y since he observes from z while being outside of temporality. P4: God's foreknowledge of decisions made at y is due to an observation from z and this knowledge does not casually influence the event itself. C: Therefore the timeless foreknowledge of God does not interfere with Free Will and the person's choice at y remains free since god always observes after the decision has been made from z.

P1 says God is atemporal and god has all knowledge that happens in temporal flow. P2 talks about a person making a decision from our perspective. P3 says that God's knowledge of this decision happens after it is made, from a vantage point outside of time (from z, the future). This indicates that God doesn't directly influence the decision through foreknowledge, as He only observes the outcome after the decision has been made. I am simply asserting that God by being atemporal could view events in a temporal sequence like past, present and the future. His foreknowledge is obtained by viewing the future event like I argued with my previous argument. P4 says that Omniscience does not casually influence Events. Conclusions claims that a tri omni god and free will of humans can coexist.

My purpose of posting this here is not say why God or an omniscient entity exists or why such an entity created it all knowing the evil implications that are bound within it's creation. I simply do not want these paradoxes to be used to deny the existence of an omniscient entity.

Thank you for reading and English is not my first language so I apologise for any mistakes in the language part or the logical notations.

I've seen a common thread on all these post. Hi, lurker here.

It goes like this.

A. "Do you believe in god?"

B. "No."

A. "Do you believe in love?"

B. "Yes."

A. "Then you believe in god 😀"

The word "god" has no official definition we can all agree on. So it's been taken to mean everything we want it to mean.

I see this as incredibly dishonest. Because no conversation can be had when words mean nothing.

Would it be possible to add a thread with definitions we can all agree on?

Definitions for:

God, Love, Evidence, Fact,

Among other common words used on here.

Or at least begin posts with definitions so we are all on the same page?

Why would the Prophet preach other than it being dictated by God. There's no other plausible model if you consider god to exist and for him to communicate with us. That's what I've heard at least. What do you guys think about this? Like why would he go through so much struggle and misfortune for this?

We have overwhelming evidence that humans make up fake supernatural stories, we have no evidence that anything “supernatural” exists. If you accept those premises, you should be a gnostic atheist.

If we were talking about Pokémon, I presume you are gnostic in believing none of them really exist, because there is overwhelming evidence they are made up fiction (although based on real things) and no evidence to the contrary. You would not be like “well, I haven’t looked into every single individual Pokémon, nor have I inspected the far reaches of time and space for any Pokémon, so I am going to withhold final judgment and be agnostic about a Pokémon existing” so why would you have that kind of reservation for god claims?

“Muh black swan fallacy” so you acknowledge Pokémon might exist by the same logic, cool, keep your eyes to the sky for some legendary birds you acknowledge might be real 👀

“Muh burden of proof” this is useful for winning arguments but does not speak to what you know/believe. I am personally ok with pointing towards the available evidence and saying “I know enough to say with certainty that all god claims are fallacious and false” while still being open to contrary evidence. You can be gnostic and still be open to new evidence.

If theirs an intelligent design (the universe and all things within it) then how can there not be an intelligent designer?

I mean clearly in order to have human levels of intelligence come into existence there would need to be greater intelligence within existence that could design that.

God fits this question,

And additional to all the questions atheists might have

All the questions you have about a religion or the idea of religion I can assure to you have been questioned and answered by theists. The truth is out there and I can assure you that you need to do more research on them.

So since atheists get triggered with the word god I’ll be more simple and pose this question:

How is the process of nature happening without using nature to explain it?

I mean if you explain it as in particles interacting with each other, what is the explanation for the particles

If you explain it as forces interacting with each other, what is the explanation of forces

It all comes down to the question of how can you explain anything at all, even the most simplest things without understanding the concept of nature.

Nature has no explanation to it and that’s the problem, it’s like an umbrella term for saying that that’s just the way things work and we have no explanation for your question

This is not as simple as saying why is the sky blue,

This is a question which defines the very existence of everything that we see, experience, and feel entirely.

And for people who say that “claiming god doesn’t answer any of the questions or doesn’t get us anywhere” or that you can ask the same question about god

Here’s what I say:

God answers all the questions: why did god create us, why is everything happening, what will happen after we die, why did everything start in the first place, what are we supposed to be doing, where are we going, why good things and bad things exist

And it all aligns with what we know of this world and doesn’t contradict what we understand of it.

So for people that don’t believe in god, what’s ur answer to the question or do you just stay not knowing anything for the rest of your existence.

How is the process of nature happening without using nature to explain it?

I don’t understand how the idea of nature can be explained without the idea of god.

Something being a natural process that’s just “happening” doesn’t make any sense

This is because by our own laws we know that the following cannot happen

Things cannot create themselves (their is nothing in this world that created itself, like spawned out of thin air, theirs always a science for how things came to be)

Things are created (their is nothing in this world that we have seen which is eternal)

So how is it possible that their is the phenomenon of nature which is a constant, consistent process throughout the entire universe that encompasses everything that keeps going, yes science can explain how things work but it does not explain how things are working

The only explanation I can think of for the process of nature is god.

God is Uniquely one, independent (everything else is dependant on it), eternal, does not beget nor is born, completely unique in it’s existence and does not resemble anything and is beyond that, the creator and sustainer of everything.

This would explain the phenomenon of nature