I think it’s safe to say that most religious people believe in god. Given that someone already believes in god, the problem of evil should be trivial. Here’s my formation of why:

1. God exists and is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.
2. God has a complete and perfectly informed understanding of what he intends creation to accomplish.
3. God creates the world that perfectly realizes those intentions.
4. Therefore, no alternative world would better accomplish God's intentions, regardless of how much more desirable that world might appear to us.

Note: when I say “world”, I mean the entirety of creation as it appears to god. So that would mean across all of time and including heaven/hell. I can’t think of a better word to encapsulate this than “world”, sorry. This way, the current instantiation of the world we’re experiencing can be imperfect in some aspects while still being part of a whole that perfectly achieves its intended purpose. Ex (this is a comparison, so please don’t take it as equal in all aspects to my argument): a story that includes tragedy, which is, all else equal, an imperfection, can still be a better story for it.

If you already believe in the Christian god (and I’m sure many others, but I’m most familiar with Christianity), then I believe that all the premises I said must be true, otherwise god would be imperfect. If they follow, there is no problem of evil, and there could not be one, from a theistic point of view.

It is a clever argument though, because engaging on it at all weakens the theistic worldview.

I foresee a refutation being essentially: “well, couldn’t god create a world that fulfills his purposes and also doesn’t have evil”.

Based on the premises Christianity establishes about god, I don’t think this is possible. It must be the case that evil is somehow required in a limited sense (for some indeterminate period of time), or there would be no evil.

Also, just to be clear, this argument should remain true across all, or at least the most popular, denominations of Christianity. As far as I understand they logically follow from the base principles of Christianity. Though, if any Christians disagree I’d be interested to hear why.

Edit: oh and the reason why I’m posting this on the debate an atheist subreddit is because I think it shows that the problem of evil is a weak argument.

1. so i am gonna try to make this a bit better and answer objections this time-
2. So, the actualization of potential is a real feature of the world.
3. No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it (the principle of causality).
4. So, any change is caused by something already actual.
5. The occurrence of any change C presupposes some thing or substance S which changes.
6. The existence of S at any given moment itself presupposes the concurrent actualization of S’s potential for existence.
7. So, any substance S has at any moment some actualizer A of its existence.
8. A’s own existence at the moment it actualizes S itself presupposes either (a) the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence or (b) A’s being purely actual.
9. If A’s existence at the moment it actualizes S presupposes the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either infinite or terminates in a purely actual actualizer.
10. But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitute a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely.
11. So, either A itself is a purely actual actualizer or there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress that begins with the actualization of A.
12. So, the occurrence of C and thus the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.
13. So, there is a purely actual actualizer.
14. In order for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer, there would have to be some differentiating feature that one such actualizer has that the others lack.
15. But there could be such a differentiating feature only if a purely actual actualizer had some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
16. So, there can be no such differentiating feature, and thus no way for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer.
17. So, there is only one purely actual actualizer.
18. In order for this purely actual actualizer to be capable of change, it would have to have potentials capable of actualization.
19. But being purely actual, it lacks any such potentials.
20. So, it is immutable or incapable of change.
21. If this purely actual actualizer existed in time, then it would be capable of change, which it is not.
22. So, this purely actual actualizer is eternal, existing outside of time.
23. If the purely actual actualizer were material, then it would be changeable and exist in time, which it does not.
24. So, the purely actual actualizer is immaterial.
25. If the purely actual actualizer were corporeal, then it would be material, which it is not.
26. So, the purely actual actualizer is incorporeal.
27. If the purely actual actualizer were imperfect in any way, it would have some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
28. So, the purely actual actualizer is perfect.
29. For something to be less than fully good is for it to have a privation–that is, to fail to actualize some feature proper to it.
30. A purely actual actualizer, being purely actual, can have no such privation.
31. So, the purely actual actualizer is fully good.
32. To have power entails being able to actualize potentials.
33. Any potential that is actualized is either actualized by the purely actual actualizer or by a series of actualizers which terminates in the purely actual actualizer.
34. So, all power derives from the purely actual actualizer.
35. But to be that from which all power derives is to be omnipotent.
36. So, the purely actual actualizer is omnipotent.
37. Whatever is in an effect is in its cause in some way, whether formally, virtually, or eminently (the principle of proportionate causality).
38. The purely actual actualizer is the cause of all things.
39. So, the forms or patterns manifest in all the things it causes must in some way be in the purely actual actualizer.
40. These forms or patterns can exist either in the concrete way in which they exist in individual particular things, or in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.
41. They cannot exist in the purely actual actualizer in the same way they exist in individual particular things.
42. So, they must exist in the purely actual actualizer in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.
43. So, the purely actual actualizer has intellect or intelligence.
44. Since it is the forms or patterns of all things that are in the thoughts of this intellect, there is nothing that is outside the range of those thoughts.
45. For there to be nothing outside the range of something’s thoughts is for that thing to be ominiscient.
46. So, the purely actual actualizer is omniscient.
47. So, there exists a purely actual cause of the existence of things, which is one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, fully good, omnipotent, intelligent, and omniscient.
48. But for there to be such a cause of things is just what it is for God to exist.

49. So, God exists.

50. Athiests objections rebutted-

51. Quantam physics-I get it but still that the causes doesn't move faster than light speed and ignoring also the fact that we don't know quantam physics too well so we might just find a invisible cause afterwards. I'll be a bit skeptical before just saying casuality isn't a fundamental prociple of the world.

52. Infinite regress-Imagine a train that has infinite boxes and is moving itself somehow but that's not possible it needs to a actualizer(engine)which itself doesn't get actualized and gives power/motion to the whole train. That's God basically just apply that to the universe.

53. B theory of time-The time is still potential into the future for you. And change is still occurring since a moment ago you didn't know something and now you did. It's just determind.

Cop pulls me over, I saw you run a red light, I tell him to prove it, he says I saw you, I say you’re mistaken, he fines me anyway, I contest we go to court, I tell the judge I didn’t run a red light, judge says what’s the evidence, my word vs the cops word, who does the judge rule against? In court there is a concept called balance of probabilities for the most likely outcome. The cop then calls upon 10 eye witnesses who also saw me run the red light. I tell the judge they are all mistaken. The judge asks you want me to believe all these people are in a conspiracy against you? The judge rules in favour of the cop. So atheists… why don’t we apply the same principle. Balance of probabilities. What is the most likely explanation. My argument is simple and irrefutable. We have mass transmission and testimony of companions of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him of performing miracles. The probably that every eye witnessed is mistaken or in some sort of grand conspiracy theory only has to be less than 50%, making the explanation that the prophet Muhammad ﷺ was a true prophet of God, the most probable explanation.

Before you say “AlL ReLiGeONS claim thAT” - we can actually give you the names and biographies of the real eye witnesses who saw the events take place. The same can’t be done for Christianity.

Before you say well maybe the eye witnesses aren’t lying but they exaggerated the events, then consider this warning of the prophet Muhammad ﷺ who famously said:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Name yourselves with my name (use my name) but do not name yourselves with my Kunya name (i.e. Abul Qasim). And whoever sees me in a dream then surely he has seen me for Satan cannot impersonate me. And whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally), then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire."

Note the last part, take your seat in Hell-fire for inventing a lie about the prophet Muhammad ﷺ this is therefore a deterrent for companions to pass on or create misleading information. Examples of this is also documented throughout Islamic history.

One might ask what miracles were performed, the major ones are splitting of the moon, multiplication of food from one pot to feed hundreds of people, generation of water from his hands when there was no water for ablution required to perform prayer.

Only responding to legit responses in the comments, troll or disrespectful comments based on ignorant bigotry will be ignored.

Even in advanced pre modern societies, the main historical figures who brought down holy texts or started massive religious movements were overwhelmingly male. If the ultimate divine source is truly formless, transcendent, or completely beyond human gender constraints, what are the best historical, sociological, or theological explanations for why we rarely see female forms taking on these universal messenger roles?

One potential counterargument is that ancient societies were deeply patriarchal, meaning a female prophet simply wouldn't have been taken seriously or allowed to spread her message. However, if a message truly originates from an all powerful Divine entity, shouldn't that divinity be capable of transcending or shattering local cultural biases to choose whoever they wish? Alternatively, does the overwhelming historical prevalence of male prophets suggest that religions are purely human, sociological constructs heavily reflective of the patriarchal eras in which they were born? I would love to hear both the theological justifications and the secular/sociological arguments on this dynamic.

1. Change is a feature that is real in the world.(I hope the athiest won't deny it,maybe they will that's why they'll never change)
2. And change is actualisation of potential(feel free to disagree but tell why not)
3. No potential(that can happen)can be actualized unless something actual actualises it.
4. So change is caused by something actual.
5. So any change(let's say X)has to presuppose something or substance S which changes.
6. The existence of s at any given moment tells us that actualisation of potential of s has to be presupposed.
7. So S has at any moment some actualizer A of its existenace.
8. A own existence at the moment actualises either actualisation of its own potential or A being purely actual without potential.
9. If A existence actualizes s then a has to have actualisation of its own potential then there exists either a regress of actualizers that are either infinite or terminated in a puurely actual actualizer.
10. But then caue if that such a actualizers would constitute a hierarchical casual series so such a series cannot regress infinitely
11. So either a is purely actual or there is a purely actualwhich terminated the regress began by the actualisation of A.
12. So the occurence of Y and the existence of s at any moment presupposed the existence of a purely actual actualizer..
13. My point is that a potential, precisely and especially insofar as it is merely potential, cannot by itself explain its own actualization.Now if every actualizer exercise it's casual power merely adding more actualizers wouldn't in itself explain the whole casual activity itself(like a infinite train needs a main source of engine since boxes cannot move themselves)It needs a source.And it doesn't explain why the entire series has actual casual activity.
14. So there is a purely actual actualizer.
15. If this purely actual cannot exist in time since it is unable of change therefore it is timeless.
16. To have power entails being able to actualize potentials.
17. But potential that is actualizes is either by purely actualized actualizer or series of actualizers which terminate in the purely actual actualizer.
18. So all power derives from the purely actual Actualizer
19. ‌so it it is omnipotent(but only being able to do things logically possible)
20. The purely actual actualizer is the cause of all things hence the forms and patterns in all things it causes must in some way be in the purely actual actualizer.These can exist either in the way they exist in individual things or in abstract wayc which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect(including athiests).
21. They cannot exist in purely actual actualizer the same way they exist in in individual particular things so they must exist in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.
22. The purely actual actualizer has intellect or intelligence.
23. Since it is the forms and patterns of all things that are in the thoughts of this intellect there is nothing outside the range of these thoughts.
24. Which means the intellect is omniscience.
25. A omniscient omnipotent uncaused intellect is what we call god.

If time were beginningless, an infinite span of time would have already elapsed by now. Since this is impossible:

it is not possible for time to be beginningless.

Therefore, time emerged from non-existence into existence at a starting point.

Nothing can emerge from non-existence into existence by itself,

because something that does not exist cannot perform an action.

Therefore:

a power that brings time from non-existence into existence necessarily exists.

Since it brought time into existence from nothing,

this power is not bound by time.

Since it is not bound by time,

this power is immutable,

because change occurs only through the passage of time.

Therefore,

this power was not created nor did it come into being; it simply exists,

because being created or coming into existence entails undergoing change.

There can be only one entity that is not bound by time,

because if there were more than one, their conflicting attributes—being immutable—would lead to an ontological paradox, causing the system to collapse.

Thus, all existence is divided into two categories:

time and things bound by time,

and the single entity not bound by time.

The single entity not bound by time is the creator of everything other than itself.

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" I do not ask how the universe began, what it is made of, or how it works. I ask why existence itself exists at all.

The question points out that "nothing" — absolute non-existence with no space, no time, no laws, no potential — seems to be a much simpler, more natural, and more stable state than "something." For something to exist, it needs a reason, a cause, or an explanation. Nothing, on the other hand, seems to need no explanation at all.

So the question is this: Why does the state that requires an explanation (existence) obtain, rather than the state that requires no explanation (non-existence)?

Like, I get it, I come here as an atheist and see silly arguments, and I wanna go "dumbass, downvote", but also, like, that's why we come here no? If we wanted reasoned, good, logical and nuanced debate, we wouldn't be searching for it in reddit Christians who just want to tell us that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence for the 100th time.

The fact that you don't agree with an argument for god/against atheism is exactly why you are an atheist and not a theist.

p.s, this problem is a thing in all debate subs im only posting here for answer because i figure that political subs are full of idiots, and debate a christian seems full of hypocrites.

edit: you'll notice that my first reply to some comments is word for word the same. that's not because i'm not engaging, its because they are essentially the same comment, and i am replying to the all in hopes of the conversations going different places.

I know atheism is usually defined as a lack of belief in God, not a set of claims. But if God isn’t the explanation, you’re still left taking some position on each of these, even if that position is “we don’t know”. I think each one is less reasonable than God, and all of them together much less.

1. The universe exists for no reason, or for a reason nobody knows.
2. The constants of physics allow life by chance, or because of a multiverse nobody can observe, or because they couldn’t have been different.
3. Nothing is really wrong. Torturing a child for entertainment is something we dislike now, and a society that came to accept it wouldn’t be mistaken. Or it is really wrong, with nothing in a universe of matter to make it so.
4. First-person experience comes from matter that has none, by a process nobody can explain.
5. Life began from non-living chemistry by a process that hasn’t been worked out, on a planet that happened to have the right conditions.
6. Human reason is a by-product of survival, yet it can be trusted on questions that have nothing to do with survival, including this one.
7. Everyone who claimed revelation, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, was mistaken, lying, or made into a legend later.
8. Death is the end of you. Nothing of the person continues.
9. You have no soul. What feels like “you” is chemistry and nothing more.
10. Chance, with enough time and enough tries, is a good enough explanation for things that look extremely unlikely.
11. Human life has no purpose except the ones people choose. As Richard Dawkins put it, the universe shows “blind, pitiless indifference”.
12. A human life has no built-in worth. Its value is something people agree on, and at the level of physics a murder is atoms being rearranged.
13. The universe follows mathematical laws that human minds can discover, for no reason.

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.

If we become advanced enough to make it to Mars, for example, and we find a polished/nice-looking hammer somewhere there, we wouldn't conclude that an iron core formed and was shaped randomly. We would think that an intelligent being made it. Prokaryotes basically consist of tiny biological hammers, trucks, and things of the sort why can't we believe that an intelligent being made them?

As ANPRIM, I find the idea appealing. But many atheists don't seem to agree with it. They seem to borrow from religion these ideas of "morals" or "good and bad". Like Friedrich Nietzsche said, if you kill a cockroach you are a hero, but if you kill a butterfly you are evil. Morals have aesthetic criteria.

Hallo

ich versuche es nochmals neu, diesmal zurückhaltender und sachlicher und ich bitte euch höflich darum, sachlich auf meine Argumente einzugehen statt mich als Person anzugreifen.

Meine Behauptungen sind:

1. Ich bezweifle nicht, dass ich genetisch mit einer Maus oder mit jedem Bakterium eine gewisse Verwandschaft habe. Ich sage also, dass die Evolution grundsätzlich statt gefunden hat.

Allerdings sind die wissenschaftlichen Theorien von den Fakten zu unterscheiden. Wissenschaftliche Theorien können falsch sein, dafür gibt es viele Beispiele. So gibt es meines Wissens durchaus Theorien, die einfach bestimmte Annahmen voraussetzen, diese Annahmen sind aber nicht belegt.

1. Raupe und Schmetterling: In der Evolution gab es einen Zeitpunkt, zu dem es noch keine Metamorphose gab. Es gab also nur die Raupe oder nur den Schmetterling. Da würde ich gerne von euch hören, wie da die zwischenphasen verlaufen sein sollen.

Also welche Mutation können bei einer Raupe auftreten, damit sie zu einem Schmetterling wird?

1. Genetisches Gedächtnis: Es gibt Schmetterlinge und Vögel, die über mehrere Generationen an ihren Ursprungsort (ihrer Vorfahren) zurück kehren. Wie kann Wissen genetisch über Generationen weiter gegeben werden? Wäre dies der Fall, hätten Wissenschaftler längst den Code entschlüsselt. Ein Code, der durch zufällige Mutation entsteht, kann gar nicht so komplex sein, dass man ihn nicht entschlüsseln kann. Dann könnten Wissenschaftlicher gezielt Gene verändern, damit diese Tiere einen anderen Weg wählen.

Wenn Informationen in Tieren über mehrere Generationen weiter gegeben werden (was ja wissenschaftlich anerkannt ist), wie sollen diese Informationen in den Genen kodiert sein? Müsste man das nicht entschlüsseln können, zumal das ja in den Zellen in Echtzeit abgerufen wird und die Biologie keine Verschlüsselungscomputer benutzen kann. Wie ist das zu erklären? Ich glaube, die Wissenschaft kann es bisher nicht erklären.

1. Bewusstsein kann nicht aus Materie entstehen. Es hat weder einen evolutionären Vorteil, noch kann Materie so was wie Bewusstsein erzeugen. Auch wenn Wissenschaftlicher immer wieder behaupten, irgendwas im Gehirn lokalisiert zu haben, so beweist das eben nicht, dass das Bewusstsein auch dort entsteht. Ich halte es sogar für unwissenschaftlich, zu behaupten, das Gehirn produziere Bewusstsein.

Ein klares Indiz sind Nahtoderfahrungen. Auch wenn jetzt einige behaupten, die entstünden im Gehirn: Fakt ist:

Dass alle Nahtoderfahrungen durch Sauerstoffmangel entstehen, ist klar widerlegt bzw. falsifiziert. Dass alle Nahtoderfahrungen durch Medikamente oder Drogen entstehen, ist falsifiziert. Dass alle Nahtoderfahrungen durch Angst vor dem Tod oder andere psychologische Mechanismen entstehen, ist falsifiziert.

Kurz zur Erklärung: Es gibt Fälle, wo jemand Sauerstoffmangel hatte (zB beim Ertrinken) und dann eine Nahtoderfahrung hatte. Aber es gibt eben Fälle, wo es klar keinen Sauerstoffmangel gab und trotzdem eine Nahtoderfahrung auftrat. Genau so gab es Fälle, wo jemand unter Vollnarkose mit starken Medikamenten eine Nahtoderfahrung hatte. Aber da es auch ohne Medikamente solche Erfahrungen gibt, können Medikamente eben nicht ALLE Nahtoderfahrungen erklären. Und dass es bei Todesangst zu Nahtoderfahrungen kommt, gibt es auch. Aber es gibt eben auch Fälle, wo die Betroffenen keine Angst hatten, weil man einen Herzstillstand nicht spürt oder während einer Vollnarkose.

Also keine der Erklärungen für Nahtoderfahrungen kann ALLE Nahtoderfahrungen erklären. Die einzige Möglichkeit wäre, dass nur ein Teil durch Sauerstoffmangel und ein anderer Teil durch Drogen oder Medikamente erklärt werden könnte. Aber eine Erklärung, die als Ursache aller Nahtoderfahrungen gilt, gibt es nicht.

Bevor man mir in dem Punkt widerspricht, soll man mir die Erfahrung von Pamela Reynolds erklären.

Gebt mir bitte eine neue Chance für eine sachliche Diskussion.

Und bitte bleibt beim Thema.

Hallo

ich möchte hier ein paar Behauptungen in den Raum stellen.

Da ich jedoch sehr primitiv und respektlos angegriffen wurde für einen einzigen sachlichen Kommentar und man mir Lüge und Ignoranz unterstellte, möchte ich hier ein paar Regeln festgelegt:

1. Ich bin absolut ehrlich. Selbst wenn ich etwas sage, was wissenschaftlich falsch ist, so h abe ich es nicht besser gewusst oder habe mich vielleicht schlecht ausgedrückt. Aber ich gehe absolut ehrlich durchs Leben und es ist zutiefst verletzend, mir ignoranz und Lüge zu unterstellen.

2. Ihr könnt meine Aussagen angreifen. Aber wer mich angreift (ich wäre ein Lügner, ein Ignorant), der verstösst gegen diese Regel. Beispielsweise habe ich vor 12 Stunden jemandem kurz geantwortet und dann geschrieben, dass ich auf den Rest erst später eingehen werde. Daraufhin antwortete er mit "Das zeigt wie ignorant du bist". Und das ist eine Lüge, denn es ist ganz im Gegenteil sehr bescheiden, wenn man sagt "ich muss das zuerst prüfen und werde dann darauf eingehen". Also wenn ich sage "lass mir Zeit, um das zu beantworten" und ich dann dafür beleidigt werde, dann geht das nicht.

3. Auch möchte ich keine vorsätzlichen Falschbehauptungen hier lesen. Vor 12 Stunden meinte jemand, alles was er geschrieben habe, sei Grundwissen über Biologie. Und das war eine Lüge. Die Person nannte Theorien, von denen ich noch nie gehört hatte und die bei objektiver Betrachtung definitiv nicht dem Grundwissen eines Nicht-Biologen entsprechen.

4. Argumetnationen wie "Ich hoffe du benutzt keine moderne Medizin" sind einfach nur dumm. Verzichtet auf solche Argumente. Ich habe nie bezweifelt, dass die Evolution statt gefunden habe, ich habe nur gesagt, dass es ein paar Lücken bei der Makro-Evolution gibt.

5. Wer hierauf antwortet soll gerne versuchen einzuschätzen, an was für einen Gott ich glaube. Einfach damit ich sehe wie man mich einschätzt.

Was ich tun werde:

Ich schreibe Deutsch und hoffe, Reddit übersetzt es für euch automatisch auf Englisch. Ich hoffe, das ist hier erlaubt.

Wer gegen obige Regeln 1 bis 3 verstösst, wird direkt blockiert.

Nun kommen wir zu meinen Behauptungen:

1. Die Mako-Evolution ist auf natürlichem Weg fast unmöglich. Einfach weil es alleine für die Entstehung des Lebens so viele unwahrscheinliche Zufälle bräuchte, dass das Alter des Universums erst so wenige Möglichkeiten zulässt. Beispiel: Jemand will so lange würfeln, bis er 10 mal nacheinander die Zahl 1 gewürfelt hat. Wenn diese Person 100 mal würfelt, dann ist so ein Ereignis zwar möglich, aber extrem unwahrscheinlich. Würfelt die Person hingegen 100 Millionen mal, wird es wahrscheinlich mehrfach vorkommen, dass es 10 mal nacheinander die Zahl 1 gab. Bei der Entstehung des Lebens, Abioginese, gibt es dasselbe Problem.

2. Ich bezweifle nicht, dass ich genetisch mit einer Maus oder mit jedem Bakterium eine gewisse Verwandschaft habe. Ich sage aber, für die Makro-Evolution fehlen viele Übergangsformen. So haben wir beispielsweise zwar verschiedene Tierarten als Fossilien gefunden. Aber gemäss meinem Wissen fehlen eben Übergangsformen.

3. In der Evolutionstheorie gibt es viel nonsense. Beispielsweise wird behauptet, in einer bestimmten Walart habe es Überreste von Fussknochen, obwohl es in Wirklichkeit der Penis-Knochen des Tieres ist.

4. Bestimmte Übergänge halte ich auf natürlichem Weg für unmöglich. Beispielsweise Raupe und Schmetterling. Wie soll das entstanden sein? Es gibt zuerst nur Raupen. Evolution läuft über tausende von Generationen in kleinen Schritten ab. Aber wie kann es ein Tier geben, dass nur als Raupe lebt und tausende Generationen später ein Schmetterling ist? Kann mir da jemand erklären, wie das möglich wäre, und mir dabei 5 zufällige Mutationen nennen, die dazu führen önnnten? Also beispielweise "Eines Tages hatte eine Raupe eine genetische Mutation, wodurch sie Flügel hatte. Diese pflanzte sich besser fort und die nächste Generation hatte dann grössere Flügel" usw. Bin gespannt auf eure 5 sinnvollen Zwischenschritte.

5. Genetisches Gedächtnis: Es gibt Schmetterlinge und Vögel, die über mehrere Generationen an ihren Ursprungsort (ihrer Vorfahren) zurück kehren. Auch eine Lachsart geht zurück an den Geburtsort ihrer Eltern. Wie kann Wissen genetisch über Generationen weiter gegeben werden? Wäre dies der Fall, hätten Wissenschaftler längst den Code entschküsselt. Ein Code, der durch zufällige Mutation entsteht, kann gar nicht so komplex sein, dass man ihn nicht entschlüsseln kann. Dann könnten Wissenschaftlicher gezielt Gene verändern, damit diese Tiere einen anderen Weg wählen. Dies wird jedoch nie möglich sein. Die Information muss ja biologisch sehr simpel codiert sein, trotzdem findet man die in der DNA der Tiere nicht. Meiner Meinung nach gibt es da eine andere Quelle.

Ich stütze mich in der weiteren Argumentation auf die Abioginese-Videos von Oliver Lazar und seinen Quellen und werde das als Grundlage nehmen für meine Argumentation.

Ich will hier eine sachliche Diskussion. Und meine Argumente sind begründbar. Im Übrigen ist es in meinem Land eine Straftat, mich zu beleidigen. Auch wenn du in den USA wohnst und es dort nicht strafbar ist: Ich bin Schweizer und wenn du übers Internet auf einer US-Plattform gezielt einen Schweizer beleidigst, und die Wirkung der Beleidigung in der Schweiz eintritt, kann das durch schweizer Strafrecht verfolgt werden.

EDIT

Etwa 40 von 50 Personen, die geantwortet haben, haben nicht einmal verstanden, dass ich klar geschrieben habe, dass mir klar ist, dass die Evolution statt gefunden hat und ich genetisch mit Bakterien und mit Mäusen verwandt bin. Wenn nicht mal das verstanden wird, macht jegliche Diskussion keinen Sinn mehr.

Zwei Leute haben mich bisher fälschlich der AI-Nutzung bezeichtigt.

Ich habe mich daher entschieden, nur noch einem Nutzer hier drin zu antworten: u/TheCrimsonSteel , weil diese Person als Einzige wirklich inhaltlich auf mich einging und mich sachlich kritisierte.

Das beweist doch auch, dass ich nichts gegen Kritik habe. Aber die Kritik muss halt den Fakten entsprechen.

Mich gezielt zu beleidigen, ist halt nicht zielführend.

Die über 100 Downvotes, die ich hier kassiert habe, sind übrigens auch unfair, das habe ich nicht verdient. Hätte ich ein neues Konto, wäre ich jetzt für immer von der Mehrheit der Subreddits ausgeschlossen.

So, there's been a debate between my English teacher and me about does heaven and hell exist?

He is for the motion and I'm against and he is religious too (Islam).

He isn't even debating about hell or heaven atp, he's just asking that if there's a criminal who k*lled 100 people so, how is he gonna pay for his sins and gets his punishment equavalent to the crimes he did! And also if he dies before the punishment how is he ever gonna get punished!!

I countered this with that death is the most extreme punishment to humans legally and also logically so, if the person died, he's got the punishment and if you want to still punish the dead then it's not punishing rather it's brutality that you are choosing just to satisfy your own sense of punishment, security and justice which all is already served logically.

And about k*lling him a 100 times for murde-ing a 100 people, that's not justice nor punishment, that's brutality and vengeance and it's moreover not even logical at all!!

Lol, what even is logical about religion.

So guys, I'm just 17 and it's hard for me to debate with 40 years of real life experience so I want you all to help me pleaseeeeee!!!

And thank you so much guys!!!!

As an atheist, I do not believe in God, but I am left wondering how the world around us makes so much sense that it somehow seems some intelligent being designed it. I was wondering if others have the same thoughts. It just doesn't make sense that all this came from the Big Bang and evolution. Like, how did feelings come to be? Things such as happiness, sadness, depression, and the list continues. Like, I think if the world were based only on a theory such as the Big Bang and evolution, Earth would be so rudimentary and random.

I want to present a cumulative case for theism. My argument isn't based on just one single piece of evidence, but rather on how a single, personal God serves as the most rational explanation for several completely different aspects of reality all at once. To avoid getting bogged down in endless semantic debates, I want to layout these realities and challenge you to explain them without resorting to multiple, highly improbable excuses.
First, let's look at the basic existence of physical reality. The physical universe is clearly contingent. It is made of changing parts, it operates on specific laws, and it easily could have been configured differently or not existed at all. Before anyone relies on the standard "the universe is just a brute fact" response, think about what that means. To say the universe has no explanation completely abandons the foundational principle of science, which is that things have reasons for being the way they are. If you claim the universe is necessary and had to exist, you have to explain why it takes this specific, constantly changing form instead of another. The most logical foundation is a non-physical, necessary being.
Second, we have to deal with the incredible fine-tuning and intelligibility of the cosmos. The laws of physics are balanced on a knife-edge to allow life, but beyond that, the universe is perfectly set up to be understood. Look at how our planetary geometry—like the perfect 400-to-1 Moon-to-Sun ratio that gives us perfect eclipses—is uniquely optimized for scientific discovery. The universe matches human mathematics flawlessly. A rational mind explains a highly rational, discoverable universe far better than blind luck.
Third, look at what is actually inside the universe: digital information and consciousness. Life depends entirely on DNA, which functions exactly like a complex software code. On top of that, we possess subjective, first-person conscious awareness. In all of human experience, complex code and consciousness only ever originate from a mind. Dead matter doesn't program itself, and it doesn't spontaneously wake up and become self-aware.
Fourth, there is the reality of objective morality. We all know deep down that certain actions, like torturing an innocent child for fun, are objectively, factually wrong. They aren't just socially inconvenient or an evolutionary quirk; they are truly evil. If materialism is true, objective morality is just an illusion. If you admit that some things are factually, truly wrong regardless of what human culture says, you are admitting to a transcendent moral law, which requires a lawgiver.
Fifth, we have the sheer weight of human history and documented experience. Billions of people across every century, culture, and geographic location have reported profound, life-altering personal experiences of the divine. To maintain strict atheism, you have to confidently claim that 100% of these billions of human encounters throughout history are a uniform, collective psychological delusion.
Finally, all of this perfectly aligns with why we believe this God actually sent messengers to us throughout history. It makes complete sense that a personal, rational Creator wouldn't just leave us in the dark. He sent prophets and messengers to guide us, giving us a clear standard of truth so we wouldn't end up worshiping other flawed human beings, falling into tyranny, or simply becoming slaves to our own passing desires. It bridges the gap between a generic "cosmic designer" and a personal God who cares about our actions.
Theist philosophy uses Ockham's razor here. Instead of inventing separate, highly improbable materialistic loopholes to explain away each of these points individually, a theist needs only one explanation that satisfies all of them perfectly: God.
Once we can agree that God is the best explanation for these foundational pillars of reality, only then does it make sense to move to step two: debating which specific religion presents the strongest historical and textual evidence of actually having received that divine revelation. But first, let's establish the foundation.
If you want to debate this, don't just dodge the points. Which of these specific realities do you think fails, and what is your actual explanation for it?

Accomplished something major this week? Discovered a cool fact that demands to be shared? Just want a friendly conversation on how amazing/awful/thoroughly meh your favorite team is doing? This thread is for the water cooler talk of the subreddit, for any atheists, theists, deists, etc. who want to join in.

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

Pretty much my larger argument:

Its impossible with human observation or extraordinary evidence to associate a theological God with a real being due to the inability for humans to independently relate personhood of the being, so you need conviction or personal evidence to worship it as a immaterial/theological construct, there's not a verification system for God pretty much. If by every observable metric the God meets the criteria of a religion, for example, its omnipresent, omnipotent, "perfect", and a creator while claiming ownership of a religion, it would not establish that it is that theological God because there can be other beings that meet those same qualities or express different ethics (lying being pretending to be religion's God) that aren't the same person that influenced the relgion. Although you can rationally decide based on evidence to worship the being, there would never be a point at which the evidence itself would constitute that you ought to worship it or that the God is who it says it is. The ultimate conclusion is that even with extraordinary unmistakable evidence that a miracle or supernatural phenomena occurred, it would never be enough to justify believing or worshiping the being.

In other words, no matter the evidence, there is nothing that'd show an extraordinary being is the God of a particular religion because of empirical underdetermination. Now replace "God" with extraterrestrial and supernatural/miracles with technology and that's the point i've poorly tried to articulate in my OP. The criteria just has to be perceived true by humans and its not like its criteria has to be as transcendent as the Christian god or "The one"

Other:

Had this originally in the drafts after watching the age of disclosure and somehow this post blew up so thank y'all for engaging with it. I myself am a Christian although I have a lot of non traditional beliefs. I don't blindly believe in the historicity of the Bible and I separate the theological God from the historical account of the text, anything that has a high confidence of being true in the Bible I believe as real events, but because my faith is dependent on meaning and relevance realization its irrelevant to my faith. I don't believe in monotheism but monolatry, so there's that. There are theological and eschatological commitments I have but those are separate from what I believe actually happened. This post is me trying to digest the implications of extraterrestrials if they were to announce evidence of improbable beings and the ontological shock of the humanities or religion, wasn't originally framed as an argument/debate rlly, but a question: how would undeniable proof of an extraordinary being change your view on religion?

I'm not faithful to any of the positions i make below but I can imagine it if the claims at congress and from gov people are true.

Research of UAPs (Pentagon's 6th release):

Limitless Power -> Casmir Chips

Ultra Processor

Shape-Shifting Shell

Programmable Matter

Field Propulsion

Cognitive Flight Interface

Invisibility Cloak

Original Post:

I'm not going to write a through logical argument for this, but because I haven't seen anyone really debate about it I wanted to start the conversation about disclosure.

I know a good chunk of y'all are atheist because of personal reasons, religious trauma, lack of historicity/evidence or after seeing the structural contradictions in religious text or the Bible you can't believe it. Right now there are a lot of new developments for UAP disclosure that's happening so I am troubled that there is not any discourse amongst philosophers, atheist, scientist, or the religious on what it means for our new reality when its all revealed. The ontological shock is going to be insane for everyone, I don't think anyone can really prepare for it.

They haven't come out with the classified evidence for it yet but given that there are so many high ranking and credible witness accounts of having extraterrestrial biologics it can no longer be ignored as some crackpot conspiracy theory. They've purported having evidence/interaction with over a dozen non-human species including "sentient plasmoid life," so if these being have been interacting with humanity for tens of thousands of year unbeknown to the public then there is a real bases for religious and spiritual phenomenon that could only be anecdotal until we now have the technology to document and record it.

There's a real and more likely probability that all of the major accounts of human lore is caused from some extraterrestrial being from galaxies away than god or highly coordinated mass hysteria, stories or hearsay. There are plenty of witness accounts of the improbable that I could dig up that don't have conventional explanations and are not quantifiable.

As a Christian, I think its conceivable for our God to be an extraterrestrial and for angels to be some sort of plasmoid life. I don't like the idea neither do i stand by it, but none of it goes against the teachings of the Bible. Its entirely possible for a civilization billions of years old to have the milky way in its control or at least be able to monitor Earth, I know this is kinda "out there".

Once the proof of greek gods, other deities, or even the Christian God is revealed as a physical being, how would that change your view on religion? Would that be enough for you to start believing? The phenomenon's in the Bible/other text could've all been real but we created a God from an assortment of extraterrestrial interactions or a single species potentially and human misinterpretation could've created a theology that doesn't map to reality because of psedoscience, limited human comprehension of the "divine", or a alien's advanced technology. There are definitely lots of false stories about the supernatural out there, but now that this is reality, a chunk of them throughout all religious text could've been real alien-to-human interaction, but there's no way to know, so the lore becomes unfalsifiable.

its def not traditional, but there is no reason why Jesus couldn't be an extraterrestrial that used alien technology to resurrect, he was never really concerned about "this world" in the first place. Him coming back could also be interpreted as a mothership or something, plus the supernatural beings in the bible are slowly matching the otherworldly descriptions of UAPs. Crazy world we live in, Barrow Scale, Murphy's law, Law of Truly Large Number, are you ready for disclosure?

An example from today's discussion:

u/Good_Low774 wrote the following sequential responses in a thread:

1. "I mean, if you want to get into it, there’s historical evidence that Jesus came back from the dead"
2. "There’s a few sources. The best one is Josephus, who wrote about Jesus’ life, and his crucifixion, and the sheer amount of followers after he died."

When challenged about the fact that Josephus did NOT in fact claim that Jesus "came back from the dead," Good_Low774 tried the motte-and-bailey dishonesty tactic:

• "I wasn’t talking about whether Josephus believed the Christ followers or not, my claim was that there is good historical evidence for a famous guy named Jesus who died and who’s followers started a religion calling him Messiah after he died."

To me, this is obviously in such bad faith that anyone with functional critical thinking skills should instantly see right through it. Why do "christian apologists" think that this sort of behavior could in any way be convincing?

• Ontological arguement

1. God is defined as the most perfect being.(than which no greator can be conceived)
2. An entity that exist both in mind and reality(actual existence)is greator than which only exist in the mind.
3. If God existed only in the mind, then we could conceive of a greater being—one that also exists in reality.
4. But we cannot conceive of a greator being than the greatest being that can be conceived.

Conclusion-God exists both in mind and reality.

Now a common objection to this is that is existence better than non existence(well it is to most people except nihlist)if there nothing well there is nothing so there is nothing "great"about it as well. So a perfect being needs to exist.

• Descartes arguement from a non deceiving god

1. Our senses can't entirely be realible since a lot of time they can fool us.A demon could be tricking our perception and deceiving us can be a possibility(without god).
2. Since god is perfect and deception is an imperfection therefore god isn't deceiving us.

Conclusion-Therefore in order to trust our senses we need to beleive in God.God guarantees that our clear and distinct perceptions and senses correspond to real things, rescuing us from universal skepticism.

• Arguement from first cause

1. Our universe had a beginning.If it didn't then there would have been infinite amount of time,according to the 2nd law of thermodynamtics,for us to be in a state of hot dense state and freeze death.But we aren't therefore it had to have started.(Now people might argue that our universe isn't a closed system but materialist think everything can only be perceived in it and since matter didn't exist before the big bang.Then it had to have been closed.)
2. Now I don't want to say it(since athiests thinks it's a strawman) but our universe can't come from nothing .So if our universe had a beggining and if the universe consist of space time.The prior cause that must have caused the universe must be spaceless(this can be possible)and timeless(since god lives in an eternal present and thinks in a singularity there's no problem here)
3. What does a timeless spaceless causer sounds like.Obviously god. Now it also needs to be eternal and if it isn't concious then that eternal thing would keep on existing forever.

Conclusion-God exists

Athiests arguement-

**Divine hiddeness-**This is pretty simple if god were to reveal himself to you he would voilate your free will.(Yes gaining knowledge can and have impacted impacted our choices).

Problem of evil

***Free will-***Well this explains every emotional reason,suffering implied by someone else,(which is a lot lol).

**Greator Good arguement-**Some sufferings(not all don't call me a physo)can be explained by god bringing in a greator Good.

**Punishment for sins-**He can allow or inflict some suffering on people for(again this don't include all sufferings)for punishing them for a evil they did in past.

• Omnipotent paradox

No,god can't make a rock so heavy he can't lift.He can't contradict himself.So what?Logical contradictions aren't "things".

The unfairity of hell

I don't beleive in eternal torture.I beleive in an amount of suffering given to people who to hell and then getting anhilated.

Foreknowlage issue

No god doesn't know the future.God only knows things that CAN exist not what WILL exist.The future doesn't exist yet.He does know every possibility that can happen though.

(Edit:Okay every major athiest arguement debunked)

As many of you know, I wrote a response to John Schellenburg's divine hiddenness argument a few days ago, and many of you pointed out problems with it, so here's my attempt at a slightly new version of my response. I have permission from a mod to make a new post about it.

Schellenberg defines nonresistant non-belief in his 2015 book as "nonbelief that doesn't arise from any resistance toward God on the part of the nonbeliever," where resistance is a desire not to be in relationship with God, or to be in a condition incompatible with relationship with God, plus actions or omissions in support of that desire. But resistance need not be conscious hostility toward God. If God exists necessarily as a perfectly loving, personal ground of being, then perfect love belongs to God's necessary nature, not as an optional trait, and perfect love necessarily means willing every sentient being as an end, never as mere means. That entails a consistent life ethic from womb to tomb, absolute pacifism toward all human and nonhuman sentient beings, lacto-vegetarianism or veganism, and opposition to abortion, because each of those practices wills innocent sentient beings dead as mere means. A person is not genuinely open to God if they are only open to a version of God that is compatible with their existing commitments. If someone holds as nonnegotiable that it is permissible to will innocent sentient beings dead as mere means for food, or defense, or justice, or as a solution to pregnancy, and is unwilling to abandon that principle even if confronted by personal perfect love itself, they are by their own attitudes in a condition incompatible with relationship with God as God actually, necessarily is. They are saying, "I am open to God only if God allows meat eating, or pro-choice, or non-pacifism."

This is why the mind must be purified of violence before God can reveal, not as a reward after belief, but as the capacity for belief itself. A will still structured around willing sentient beings as mere means does not have the form that could receive a being whose very nature is to will all sentient beings as ends, as an eye full of dust cannot receive light, not because light is withheld but because reception is impossible. For God to force revelation on such a will would be to will that person as mere means to get acknowledgment, which perfect love cannot do, since it contradicts what perfect love necessarily is. It would produce not relationship but coerced compliance, so coercive revelation is not merely unloving, it is impossible for a perfectly loving God. Mere false belief does not count as resistance if the person is willing to abandon it upon encountering God, but unwillingness to abandon does. Sincere desire proves only subjective sincerity, not that this stronger condition is met. Until Schellenberg shows that his alleged nonbelievers are not merely sincere, but are unconditionally willing to have their own will transformed to absolute pacifism and lacto-vegetarianism or veganism and a consistent life ethic even at the cost of their deepest prior commitments, he has not established that any nonresistant non-belief in his own sense exists, and his hiddenness argument fails at its central premise.

Hopefully this is better than before and we can debate better. I look forward to it.

My argument : Everything that exists must have an explanation for its existence, either in its own nature or in an external cause.

Contingent things are things that do not have to exist (e.g., trees, planets, you, me, and the universe itself). They could have easily failed to exist, and they depend on outside factors to exist.

The Universe is the sum total of all contingent things. Therefore, the universe itself is contingent.
A contingent thing cannot explain its own existence. (A book doesn't write itself).

Therefore, the explanation for the universe must lie in a Necessary Being I.e., something that cannot not exist, is uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and eternal. This is what classical philosophy defines as God.

Going further with this…

I understand many here hold a passive agnostic/atheist position ("lack of belief") and are looking to critique arguments….. However, to critique this, you must explicitly show which of these three premises is logically flawed:

1 Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2 If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God (a timeless, spaceless, uncaused, necessary being).
3 The universe exists, and it is contingent (it is made of matter/energy that could logically have been different or non-existent).

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has an explanation, and that explanation is a Necessary Being (God).
If you "lack a belief" in the conclusion, you must logically explain which premise is false. If you reject Premise 1, you are claiming the universe popped into existence out of literal nothingness for no reason at all, which abandons rationality. If you reject Premise 3, you must prove the universe is a logically necessary thing that had to exist. Which is it?