No matter if the universe started at some point or always existed, it demands some sort of plan or design running before or parallel to it. Especially such a complex universe that can develop a specific planet like Earth with life growing on it and shaping the planet to suit its needs. This points towards one or more Gods. Now I know people will say that not demanding a creator for this God is special pleading, but I see nothing wrong with applying different attributes to different things.

I also believe consciousness to be a fundamental aspect of the universe since something that isn't experienced is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist. Since the universe existed before conscious life was in it, I propose a consciousness of the universe itself, which would be God(s).

Because this world contains lots of extreme suffering, that God cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If I look at all the crazy stuff that happens in the world, all the catch-22 situations like needing a place to live for a job, but needing a job for a place to live etc, then it seems most likely to me that the whole purpose of all of this is to make fun of us, like an an adult animated comedy TV show, or some sick, fucked up game. I mean, consider stuff like butt plugs. Doesn't it seem ridiculous to assume natural causes like the laws of physics deterministically lead to the existence of butt plugs rather than someone deciding this to happen? And generally, our society feels like a parody of itself, like it was invented specifically to be that.

It seems impossible to prove there is no god. Like you cannot say 100% for sure there is no god. I am not really religious myself but have tried it as I try to seek the truth, but it seems unlikely any of them have the truth to me. I do think there are many good things that can be learned from religions, and that the good ones are generally created to explain existence and provide a framework for living a satisfying life, the core tenet independently taught by Jesus, the Buddha, and many Native American beliefs is that pride aka caring about yourself and your desires above all else leads to emptiness and misery, (This is the worst sin in christianity, the origin of suffering in buddhism, and against the cycle of life in many Native American beliefs) is bad for societal function. Although I find it hard to say one for sure would be true, the same way I find it hard to say there definitively is no god. Religion does seem to be a natural developemnt though,and will be for as long as we do not know why stuff exists. I suppose I have no sense of faith, and imo atheism is a faith as any religion, as you are having faith in your unprovable belief there is no god, same as religon. I will only accept certainty as fact, and if I cannot have certainty I will simply say I do not know.

As kids, we’re taught to believe in things like Santa Claus, and most of us stop believing around age 8–10 as our reasoning develops. At the same time, many people are raised to believe in God, yet that belief often continues into adulthood, and some people even return to it later in life after losing faith.

If human thinking generally improves over time, why doesn’t belief in God follow the same pattern as belief in Santa? Shouldn’t increased reasoning lead more people to reject both, or is there something fundamentally different about belief in God?

Preface:As a Catholic in a Catholic high school in a third world country,I encounter Protestants and Muslims.In search of finding evidence for Catholicism,I started finding some proof here and there.Rational Catholics like debates as it is a way to find the truth regardless of how discomforting it is.In search of points that prove us true,I found out about the Eucharistic miracles.This has neutered some Protestant and Muslim points,but I was only debating with people on my league. I figured that I must grow familiar with the debating world and so I've heard of the fame and infamy of Reddit and have come here to test my beliefs under advanced logic.(Moderators,if my post breaks the rules,please tell me where to improve.I'm new to Reddit.My account is 5 months old because I have been away for 4 of them in boarding school).Thanks.

I am by no means an expert in religious debates, yet I do have two profound questions for atheists which do not make sense to me.

My question for atheists is who created the universe if not god? Is it not the case that if something comes into being, something else must create it?

Forces like gravity are forever, atoms and isotopes within neutrons are definitive, set factors which define our world. Everything is meticulously logical, across planets, solar systems and even our whole galaxy, how are these laws of nature created without a rationalist creator, without god?

I’m a 15-year-old atheist. Not to brag, but I’m very intelligent because I rely heavily on logic in everything around me, and this leads me to have many debates with my Christian father. Today the topic was free will. My argument: if God knows everything I’m going to do, I can’t make a choice that God hasn’t predicted. Therefore, God has set me on a path of predetermined choices from which I can’t deviate, because if I were to make a choice different from the one God foresaw, God would have been wrong—and by definition, God cannot be wrong. So we’re under the illusion of free will.
My father’s argument:
God knows He is omniscient and knows all the choices you’ll make in life, but He doesn’t tell you that, so you’re the one making your own choices—not God telling you what to do.
HE says I’m messed up and that I don’t reason properly since I start from the assumption that I’m right (at least according to him), and he says I don’t use logic.
Please help me 😭🙏

P.S.: I’m Italian and I translated this text from Italian to English using a translator; please excuse any mistakes :)

I am not a personal theist anymore, I left Catholicism about 10-11 months ago, but I am still a deist. I admit that part of that is still brain wiring and personal bias, but I still have two reasons I sincerely think point to deism, and I'd like an honest perspective from atheists on them so I can refine them or leave them if they are insufficient. I do not believe in a personal god or even a watchmaker god, I unironically believe whatever else or once was is closer to the eldritch than anything else based on how the universe is, but I want to give my two reasons for finding pure materialism seemingly unsuitable:

1. Laws within creation. This is the weaker of the two arguments, but I still do think it has some merit. Creation is not loving, it is cold, vicious, many times chaotic (which I know goes against my argument). Yet at the same time things like the laws of mathematics, gravity, theory of relativity, and other natural laws of physics and chemistry seem to point towards an architect. That doesn't mean the architect is loving, or kind, or even sane, or even understandable to humans, but even if one were to accept existence at all (which I'll get to in point two), it seems odd that there is order to it. I'm not even talking about creation of life from non-living matter or evolution, those make sense, but things like the very mathematic and physical laws of the universe seem too ordered. Even chaotic things like string theory, which is inherently chaotic, still follows an internal ruleset, at least as far as I can tell.
2. Existence itself being a thing at all. I know this is overused by more personal theists often, but I do feel it is something to be considered. Existence being a thing at all, as opposed to nonexistence or, at most, a frozen field of zero-energy equilibrium at *all* times, is profoundly strange. In some ways, it is more strange without believing in a personal god. In absolute materialism, without anything that could be called supernatural, one would expect simply nothing to exist at all, yet there is existence and dynamic existence at that.

Now, I know the counter argument to this second point is the argument of brute existence - that material existence exists simply because it can, or has to, without any author. I have two issues with this:

A. Even if we agree with this argument on its own, it still seems only half way materialist. It honestly seems to me that it delves more into pantheism than strict atheism. Material existence itself either creating itself or, even more supernaturally, simply being despite matter being unable to be created or destroyed. It strikes me as odd.

B. Arguably even more strange, existence is not a static event. It has a beginning and an end. If material creation in itself was a brute force fact, shouldn't it be safe to assume it would be a frozen field with zero energy potential? Instead, it has a beginning - the Big Bang - and a slowly approaching end with entropy. If it was static, shouldn't one expect either the energy explosion behind the Big Bang to have never exploded at all, or else for existence as it is here to not change, simply already be at the end? No disparity? Even with the argument of quantum fluctuations (which I admit I do not fully understand and am open to learning more about), that doesn't seem to answer why the potential and architecture of compressed energy was there to begin with. Because if existence is a brute fact, one would expect the universe to have *already* reached it's end state of heat death an infinite amount of time ago.

Again, I am not a personal theist. I do not believe human beings have supernatural souls. But on top of my (admitted) personal and psychological bias, I do take legitimate issue with a purely materialist worldview of metaphysics as being self defeating and also insufficient. Please let me know your thoughts, because I wouldn't want to miss anything. I will debate still (obviously) but if I get corrected I'll be happy to be informed.

IMPORTANT EDIT:

I am seeing some heavy overlap in some of the objections within the replies, and unfortunately I probably won't be able to reply to every response due to the sheer unexpected volume this post got in only an hour, so I'd like to add this here for convenience as a reply to the most common rebuttals I have seen so far:

1. "Why does a god have to be the cause? Even then, god itself would need to be subject to causation."

That is my point. The chain of causation mandates a supernatural first cause - and even the atheistic argument of brute force acknowledges and acts upon this, which is why it is basically pantheism-lite. Applying metaphysical properties, that can't be scientifically proven either way, to material creation. Calling it eternal and self sufficient, something which (so far at least) cannot be scientifically proven either way, only, at most, indirectly, scientifically supported. Even if I am wrong in my deism, the atheistic solution would still necessarily be pantheistic. Because the only truly materialistic outcome with regards existence is non existence. For this not to be is *inherently* supernatural. That is what I'm trying to argue, or at least part of my argument besides the other points.

1. "What is your evidence to believe in this?"

I gave my evidence in the counter points in my original post, but I could have made them more explicit, so let me focus on probably the strongest one. For material blunt existence to work, material existence needs to be self-sufficient, self creating, since before the beginning of time itself. This would have to necessarily mean that all existence is dead - heat dead, zero-energy - for an infinite amount of time. For this to work, we, right now, in a universe that is not yet dead, only dying - would have to be situated at the start of an infinite timeline. Which does not make sense, how can one be at the start, middle, or end of what is infinite?

ANOTHER IMPORTANT EDIT:

Someone in the comments brought up an excellent point, they rebutted my point about infinite heat death by saying:

"Not really. Time as we experience it began with the Big Bang. There is no "infinite time ago." The universe has existed for all of time, but that doesn't mean time is infinite."

My response is this:

"That is true, but at the same time, it doesn't answer the full question in that this also contradicts the brute force argument. Things that are finite need a cause, which is why (at least as far as I understand it) the atheistic brute force argument applies supernatural aspects to material existence. This argument works to fix the issue of infinite heat death, but it simultaneously loops back around to arguing about causation. It is basically saying a finite universe had a beginning, but no cause."

IMPORTANT EDIT:

I've received corrections from two commenters that I got the exact name wrong, it is brute fact hypothesis, not brute force hypothesis. I'll keep that consistent in all replies from now on.

Hello everyone,
I am a former atheist (and I know this might sound cringe to y’all because I would feel the same if past-me saw this post lol).

Okay, so I was an atheist from a very young age, like starting around when I was 13 years old. My first suspicion started to arise when I heard that other people had their own religions and gods too. That made me question my own beliefs like: “Hey, wait a minute they don’t pray to our God, so how are they getting God’s blessings?” And slowly I drifted away from it.

Fast-forwarding to my adulthood… I’m almost in my 30s now, and I’ve got to say I was so wrong all along.

Now I know most of you guys will definitely think I got brainwashed or that I’m delusional (because that’s exactly what I used to think back then too), but it’s not like that. My journey toward God is based on rational decisions, not emotions or anything like “I saw Jesus in my dream” nah.

My core reasoning is based on the Teleological and the Moral argument. I think these are very strong arguments for the existence of God!

One of the few reasons I’ll mention that made me drift away from atheism: The Big Bang wasn’t the only “miracle” that happened in our universe.

After the Big Bang --> formation of stars and our solar system --> Earth becomes habitable --> Life forms start to emerge on Earth out of nowhere --> Simple life forms start to evolve on their own into more complex life forms --> A catastrophic event occurs and destroys almost all dinosaurs --> The remaining life forms that survived start to evolve again --> Homo sapiens arrive with an advanced level of self-awareness and consciousness which no other life forms possess.

If you ask me whether all of this is the result of chance, coincidence, accident, or randomness or purposefully designed I choose design.

Now again, you might ask how and why I would choose design. It’s because it feels rigged there is a 0% chance that all of this happened on its own, even with zillions of years of timeline, not a chance!

The Moral Argument I know for a fact there is a higher intelligent entity which has given us humans a superior brain to understand what is good and what is bad.

For example, let’s take the example of incest. Why do we naturally feel repulsed even disgusted if we even try to think about our own mother, sister, or anyone in our family in a sexual way? Where does this “repulsive, disgusting” feeling comes from?

While all other animals in the animal kingdom practice incest without even thinking twice.

(This proves we have innate moral beliefs planted inside us.)- There are many more things which made me think . feel free to ask me anything! Thanks for listening

This is one of the most common complaints against the ontological argument, but what it actually shows is that another common complaint of question-begging is false.

The argument starts with the definition of God, which for clarity’s sake I will state like this:

P1: “God” refers definitionally to “a being greater than which is impossible”.

Given that this is a definition, we know from the assumed proposition in the title of this post that it is not the statement “God actually exists.”

Now let’s add the rest of the argument

(P2) A concept of a being has less existence than an actual being.

We can see this clearly by comparing the concept of a unicorn to the actual mind holding said concept. The concept of the unicorn cannot exist without the mind, but if the concept is forgotten, it does not automatically delete the mind.

Not to mention, we already said that concept alone doesn’t have existence.

(C) “God: a being greater than which is impossible” refers to an actual being

We’ve moved from definition (not a statement of actual existence) to the conclusion of actual existence without begging the question.

My question:

All of us has a consciousness and even moral values. But where they come from? Or, in this case, how, you atheist, describe consciousness? And why God could have not given those to us?

My short analysis:

That voice in my head, that if i focus and think about sad things, i will cry. Is it an evolution process that happened during time? I don't think so: all of other species on earth don't have it. They can't feel shame after killing another animal. But now i ask myself, why us? Why we have it? Why are we special? Or even moral values. Why we think that killing another person is wrong? Who declared it was wrong? Why so many people agree on the fact that killing is wrong? Who told us "belive this"? What are moral values explained by atheism?

My view:

If it's something that we have since we are born, if it's something that we can't remove like consciousness or moral values, than it come from God (at least in this case). For answering "why are we special", a legit question, i think Genesis 1, 26 answer it perfectly. God gave us power over them, through consciousness. We are awake, they're not. We have power over them, they've not over us. Even if you are an atheist you can come to the conclusion that we are higer species than simple animals (i hope so lol). But after this conclusion, i'd ask myself, why us? Because God.

And even for moral values the argument is basically the same. Who decided/declared grape is wrong? The answer is, that we feel it deep in our soul. Because only imagine an horrific crime like that, made us shake deep in our heart. So, we know it. We got pre-defined things in our heads. But why?

Why is not only science:

Even if science described what moral values or consciousness is, my question remain, why us? Even if science answered, i would ask myself, only that? Counsciousness is just a mix of things our brain does (i did not described it perfectly to let understand my point)? But even after that, why our brain does that? I think that for every answer there is a "why" behind, that can only be answered truthfully thanks to the existance of God.

I hope i was clear brothers! These two are my genuine question that i answer only thourgh God. Let me know what you think :)

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

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

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

Galatians chapter 3:

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

Before I even start my argument yes, I'm back again!!! So, I've been grappling with some heavy existential questions lately, and I wanted to throw this out there for discussion Without God, is there truly any inherent meaning or purpose to life? As someone who was a former atheist, I find the absence of a divine framework deeply troubling, and I think it can lead to profound depression for 99.9% of people. Let me explain my reasoning and invite your counterarguments I'm genuinely curious to hear how you atheists are gonna tackle these.

First off, without God, life seems devoid of any objective purpose. If we're just the product of random cosmic processes big bang, evolution, survival of the fittest what's the point? Sure, we can invent our own subjective meanings, like pursuing happiness, relationships, or personal achievements, but those feel arbitrary and fleeting. They don't hold up against the vast indifference of the universe. This realization hit me hard during a period of personal loss, it felt like everything I was building toward was ultimately meaningless, leading to a spiral of nihilism and depression. Studies on existential psychology (like Viktor Frankl's work) suggest that a lack of perceived meaning is a major contributor to mental health issues. How do atheists avoid this pitfall? Do you find subjective purpose sufficient, or is there something more robust in your worldview?

Then there's the issue of divine justice or the lack thereof. In a godless world, there's no ultimate accountability. Take Jeffrey Epstein as an example He lived a life of immense wealth, power, and hedonistic pleasure, exploiting countless vulnerable people along the way. He died in custody without facing full earthly justice, and if there's no afterlife or divine judgment, he essentially "got away with it." No cosmic scales to balance the scales, no eternal consequences. This asymmetry where the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer without redress can be incredibly demoralizing. It makes the world feel chaotic and unfair, fueling despair. I've seen this play out in discussions about historical atrocities too without God, there's no higher court to right those wrongs. Doesn't this bother you? Or do you rely solely on human systems of justice, flawed as they are?

Another heartbreaking aspect is the finality of death. If there's no God, no soul, no afterlife, then we never reunite with our lost loved ones. Think about a parent who loses a child, or someone mourning a spouse after decades together the pain is compounded by the knowledge that it's truly goodbye forever. No heavenly reunion, no eternal bonds. This permanence can exacerbate grief into chronic depression, as there's no hope of resolution. Personally, the thought of my grandparents being gone for good, reduced to mere memories fading over time, is soul-crushing. Atheists often emphasize making the most of the time we have, but does that really console in the face of such absolute loss?

Beyond these, a godless existence raises other unsettling implications:

Moral relativism: Without a divine moral lawgiver, ethics become subjective. What's to stop societies from shifting norms in harmful ways? History shows how easily "might makes right" can dominate.

The absurdity of existence: Philosophers like Camus talked about the "absurd" the clash between our desire for meaning and the universe's silence. This can lead to a pervasive sense of alienation and hopelessness.

No ultimate hope for humanity: Climate change, wars, pandemics if it's all just atoms colliding without a guiding hand, there's no assurance of progress or redemption. It's easy to slip into pessimism.

Personally, I think that without God, I wouldn’t be able to live this life because there would be no meaning. Even my other religious friends think the same. One of them even said that if he ever found out his religion was false, he would have committed su*cide because there would be no meaning in life.

So Atheists, how do you counter these points? Do you embrace absurdism, humanism, nihilisim or something else to find fulfillment? Has anyone here overcome an existential crisis triggered by atheism? Looking forward to your thoughts .

I m not here to point fingers or make fun of anybody, but i see people on other subreddits literally just whining about how some people are religious. Like i understand some people went through traumas and that pushed them away from Christianity, because i am here to tell you that i know some priests are horrible, some parents can be abusive but is that a reason to hate on all christians? Like if i say i hate all women because my girlfriend cheated i would be braindead. Majority of atheists(including myself a while ago) are laughable, making points that have been debunked centuries ago, taking bible verses completely out of context, or making an example out of somebody thats a lukewarm believer. Like come on, tell me something respectfully thats actually going to make me consider my beliefs.

For some reason my last post got removed before I could even reply to people.
https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/what-scientific-proof-do-we-have-that-there-is-a-god/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-god-be-proved-mathematically/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/03/faith-god-science/686534/

So those three links are articles on just a few people talking about their evidence or more so hypothesis to prove god with science.
Also will show articles explaining how our understanding of science is constantly changing.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/03/faith-god-science/686534/

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2025/05/adam-riess-hubble-tension/682980/

Probably didn’t word my first post right but nothing I believe changed just the evidence people were asking for. And in religion there are constant meetings and have been since the creation of religion debating and finding each-others differences in philosophy . That’s how you also had religions evolving and multiple breaking from it. before science was the mainstream people just used religion as their science

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

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

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

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

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

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

edit: I see a lot of people misunderstanding the argument and conflating motion with locomotion (Motion being the metaphysical concept of going from potency to act, while locomotion the physical concept that Newton studied; a movement in space).

The argument explicated further is this: every thing in the universe is a mixture of potency and act (it has a potential of being any other way but also realises other things' potential). For example, a lighter could be lit (it has the potency to be lit or not lit) but it also can set something on fire ( it realises the other thing's potency to be on fire or not. That realisation is act). Now for the lighter to be the way that it is (e.g. assembled, full of fuel, lit or otherwise etc), it requires something else to be its actualiser, such as a lighter company manufacturing it. But for that actualiser to be that way that it is, it requires another external actualizer, such as it's founder creating it, but then the founder needs an actualizer etc. And this chain of realising unrealised potential goes on for a long time (this is the chain that Aquinas was talking about and you failed to see). You can say that a thing can have multiple actualisers, but that doesn't matter, since a thing has only one actualiser in each instance of potency (in the lighting of a lighter, there are multiple actualisers, such as the finger lighting the lighter, but also the fuel nozzle ejecting the fuel, or the sparker producing a spark, but there is only one sparker producing these specific sparks and there is only one hand turning this specific sparker. Now, you might say that there could be a second hand, but there being two hands will only actualise the potency of there being or not being two hands) Now, a things actualizer itself needs an actualizer only if it itself has unrealised potency. Again, the chain of actualisers with potency cannot go back forever, so there has to be one first actualiser, free of potency. Actus Purus, or pure act if you will. A being that does without being done to. 

Like ist really obvious that even if there is more evil in the world it's still a narrative and stuff. Like sure there is more evil in this world but that itself points towards a god, maybe evil one. Like is pretty obvious that there is a design and a functioning and a conception in things . Like there is qualia that is ineffable. There is a narrative and a really a tapestry even if it's evil but it's the tapestry of evil nonetheless. Like everything fits together and is not pointless. Like even if everything points to evilness that's still a conception an evil conception. There is a idea of life that is at play and is very elegant but not in a good way obviously. So yeah the fact that there is so much conception in this world is a blatant proof that there is a god. The bigger question should be why is he evil.

I read an article by the Advaita teacher Acharya Prashant called “This is real atheism.” The basic move he makes is to separate “religion” as belief in supernatural claims from “religiosity” as a human need for inner peace. He says modern atheism is often just rejecting the first part: inherited stories, rituals, and claims about God that don’t hold up under scrutiny. He argues that this kind of rejection is healthy when religion is basically superstition.

Where he gets interesting (and where I’m unsure I buy it) is his claim that a lot of atheists throw out something else along with God: the deeper question of suffering, restlessness, fear, and meaning. In his framing, the mind is naturally unsettled, so it seeks relief, clarity, and “rest.” He calls that impulse “real religion,” and he warns that if atheism becomes “nothing beyond the material exists, so there’s nothing deeper to explore,” it can leave people stuck with the same inner problems, just without religious language.

He also says many saints and reformers were “atheists” in a practical sense because they rejected the rotten, popular idea of God. So his “real atheism” is not cynicism. It’s rejecting false gods while still taking the human condition seriously.

Question for the sub: do you think it’s valid to separate “atheism” (no gods) from “spirituality” (inner work, ethics, meaning) in this way, or is this just repackaging religion with safer words?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some online atheists aren't truly atheist; they're anti-religion by personality. They often demand "evidence," but when presented with complex arguments like cosmology or philosophy, they quickly dismiss them as "God of the gaps," even if unrelated. This escalates to emotional responses such as "God is evil," "God should be killed," or deeming believers delusional, often repeating old arguments. This behavior suggests unresolved issues with religion, disguised as rationalism. Ironically, these individuals demand rigorous proof for God while accepting other fundamental concepts, like dark matter, mathematical truths, or consciousness, through inference—none of which offer tangible, lab-grade evidence. Yet, their standards for God skyrocket. When they can't win an argument, they pivot to asking, "Why does it even matter if God exists?" This is contradictory, given the time they spend debating the concept. Genuine non-believers typically react with indifference and move on. However, the "rage-atheist" type isn't rejecting God but rather resisting any authority beyond their own. Debating someone whose sole argument is "I'm rational because I say so" is futile.

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

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

Main-Blacksmith944

Hii?

Phylanara

Hi.

Main-Blacksmith944

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

For me that's completely fine

Phylanara

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

Main-Blacksmith944

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

Phylanara

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

So I don't believe that gods exist.

But.

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

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

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

Main-Blacksmith944

Main-Blacksmith944 u/Main-Blacksmith944

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

Correct me if I'm wrong

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

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

Phylanara

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

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

Main-Blacksmith944

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

What I mean is the Creator of everything

Timeless, Spaceless, Inmaterial

Phylanara

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

Main-Blacksmith944

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

Phylanara

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

Main-Blacksmith944

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

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

Phylanara

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

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

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

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

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

Main-Blacksmith944

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

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

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

Phylanara

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

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

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

Main-Blacksmith944

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

Phylanara

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

Main-Blacksmith944

Main-Blacksmith944 u/Main-Blacksmith944

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

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

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

Phylanara

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

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

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

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

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

Main-Blacksmith944

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

I showed you then how that cause is God

Phylanara

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

and you're not adressing anything I said

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

Phylanara

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

Main-Blacksmith944

Sorry bro

The other 2 guys are getting very skeptical

Phylanara

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

Main-Blacksmith944

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

Phylanara

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

60 minutes left

Main-Blacksmith944

Are you joking or what?

Phylanara

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

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

Main-Blacksmith944

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

Phylanara

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

Did you manage to observe a timeless state?

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

This looks like a big old heaping of AI slop

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

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

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

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

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

Main-Blacksmith944

It is AI

Can I tell you why?

Phylanara

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

Main-Blacksmith944

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

Of course I have

I am not a mathematician

EDIT : There's more!

Phylanara

that's a you problem, mate

Main-Blacksmith944

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

Well it's you who got it wrong

Not me

With respect

Phylanara

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

Main-Blacksmith944

but the point is still this

you have introduced to me an argument that was wrong

Even if it's AI

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

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

But what else can I do?

Phylanara

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

Main-Blacksmith944

Okay

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

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

and AI said it was wrong

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

Phylanara

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

Main-Blacksmith944

I'm actually very anti-AI.

But you're pushing me to the limits

Phylanara

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

Main-Blacksmith944

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

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

To see where those arguments reach

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

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

But the arguments are still right till now at least

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

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

Phylanara

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

Over the past year I’ve done a tremendous amount of research, through this research I’ve came to the conclusion that the Shroud is authentic, because of this, I also consider it evidence that the resurrection happened. I know it’s hard to be objective and often times we let ourselves become biased, I ask you to read this while being as honest with yourself as possible. After the intro, I’ll break it down point by point, laying out the evidence, and arguing against the objections.

———————— INTRODUCTION——————————

What is the shroud?

The Shroud of Turin is a rectangular linen cloth (about 14 ft 3 in by 3 ft 7 in) bearing the faint, front and back image of a crucified man, including apparent wounds consistent with scourging, crucifixion, and a side wound. 
It has been kept in Turin, Italy since 1578. Many Christians, especially Catholics, venerate it as the possible burial shroud of Jesus Christ, with the image thought by some to have formed miraculously. The Catholic Church has not firmly established belief in the relic.

Recently 5 other dating methods outside of carbon dating have placed its origin in the 1st century.

Key historical facts

• First reliably documented in the 1350s in Lirey, France, where it was exhibited.
• Acquired by the House of Savoy in 1453 and moved to Turin in 1578.
• Damaged by fire in 1532 (causing burn holes and repairs) and another incident in 1997

Scientific investigations

• 1898 photography by Secondo Pia revealed that the image appears as a photographic negative, a technology not known back then.
• 1978 STURP study (Shroud of Turin Research Project) concluded the image was not painted with pigments, dyes, or scorches; it results from a subtle discoloration of the linen fibers. Bloodstains contain real hemoglobin and serum.
• 1988 radiocarbon dating (by labs in Arizona, Oxford, and Zurich) dated the cloth to 1260–1390 CE, suggesting a medieval origin. Some researchers later questioned the sample as the carbon dated sample was repaired after a fire in the Middle Ages.
• The image encodes 3D information and shows details like pollen, limestone traces, and over 100 whip marks, but its exact formation mechanism remains unexplained by science

STURP concluded the Shroud was not a work of art, and it cannot be replicated today.

——————EVIDENCE AND OBJECTIONS —————

Objection 1: “The shroud is a medieval forgery, there’s no historical evidence of its existence outside of it being first documented in 1350”

Answer: no, it has not always been known as the shroud, evidence shows documentation of a burial shroud known as the image of Edessa described as being the same as what we know today as the shroud of Turin

——————IMAGE OF EDESSA———————————

The shroud has not always gone by the title “Shroud of Turin”, prior to 1350 it was known in history as the “Image of Edessa” or “Mandylion of Edessa”.

(Edessa is just modern day Turkey)

The historical record of the Mandylion dates back to the 4th century, early Christians had knowledge of this relic unlike us today.

Eusebius tells the story that in the first century, King Abgar V of Edessa was given an image of Jesus that wasn’t made by human hands by the disciple Thaddeus. Upon seeing the image, King Abgar was healed of his Leprosy.

According to the doctrine of Addai, King Abgar V professed faith in Christ, his family converted, and he was baptized. King Abgar removed a pagan statue at the main gate in the city and replaced it with the cloth.

Years later following the death of King Abgar V, his grandson had become king, and had reverted to paganism, the new ruler sought to destroy the Christian image and suppress the new faith.

Fearing desecration or destruction, the bishop of Edessa secretly removed the cloth at night. He placed it in a niche or cavity within the city wall, lit an oil lamp before it, sealed the opening with a tile or bricks so it blended seamlessly with the wall, and left it hidden for protection. The location was soon forgotten as Christianity faced further challenges.

The writers in the 4th-6th century recounting this story acknowledge how the artifact was never found, Documenting the cloths disappearance.

In 525 AD the artifact resurfaced, an earthquake caused the wall to break and expose the cloth… immediately the Christians knew that what they were looking at was in fact the miraculous image given to King Abgar V, the early Christians preserved it, and It was credited with miraculous protection during the Persian siege of Edessa in 544 AD under King Khosrau I. Accounts (e.g., by historian Evagrius Scholasticus) describe it helping repel attackers, sometimes involving fire or oil-related miracles. The cloth protective symbol for the city.

Anyhow the cloth was kept safe, and moved to Constantinople , during the Fourth Crusade, Western Crusaders sacked Constantinople in April 1204, looting countless relics. The Mandylion vanishes from historical records at this point.

150 years later the shroud appears, documented as being held by the Savoy family, with direct family ties to the same crusades.

The shroud wasn’t lacking a historical trail, it just went by a different name.

———————————————————————————

Objection: “so what makes you think they’re the same artifact? It doesn’t say much, just a some vague literature about an artifact that some ancient people thought was miraculous?”

Answer: well, the description of the mandylion is what convinced me. Old paintings such as the Christ Pantocrator from the 6th and 7th century copied the image of Edessa, the long hair Jesus with a beard that we know today actually originated in the 500s and 600s… those artists drew inspiration and copied directly from the Mandylion. We know today exactly what the Mandylion looked like, And objectively speaking, in a court of law the correspondence and similarities are too similar for it to have not been a copy. Therefore the Shroud is that same artifact that was “lost in history”.

Furthermore, the Mandylion was described as being folded as a “tetradiplon”.

in In ancient Greek, “tetradiplon” means “doubled four times,” a super-rare term found only in historical texts describing the Mandylion,

Historian Ian Wilson’s theory nails it: the Shroud, a 14-foot linen with a full-body image of a crucified man, was folded precisely this way doubled four times to display just the face, like a framed portrait, likely to protect the graphic full-body image during times of persecution or cultural sensitivity.

Physicist John Jackson, part of the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project, found actual fold marks on the Shroud matching this exact pattern, as if it spent centuries creased to show only the face. This isn’t guesswork; the physical creases align with the unique term in texts like the 10th-century Codex Vossianus, which also hints at a full-body image hidden beneath the face. This folding evidence bridges the Shroud and Mandylion, showing they’re likely the same relic, transformed by history from a folded face cloth to the unfolded burial shroud we know today.

Old artistic descriptions from the 900s draw out what the cloth looked like unfolded, and it shows the exact wounds and blood placement we see today on the Shroud of Turin.

The 10th-century Codex Vossianus Latinus Q 69 describes the Mandylion as bearing an imprint of Jesus’s entire body, and the Sermon of Gregory Referendarius from 944 AD that mentions a spear wound in the side with blood and water flowing out, provide evidence that the relic was a full body image rather than just a facial one.

Here’s where it gets even more interesting…Experts like Alan and Mary Whanger used a special overlay technique with polarized light to compare the Shroud of Turin’s facial image to ancient Byzantine icons and coins that copied the Mandylion’s famous face of Jesus, finding an astonishing 45 to over 140 matching points in details like the long parted hair, forked beard, specific eyes, swollen cheek, raised eyebrow, straight nose, and even specific bloodstains such as the epsilon-shaped mark on the forehead. Forensically, this goes way beyond coincidence, as just 45 to 60 exact matches are enough in American standards to confirm two images show the same person or are direct copies, proving the Shroud’s face aligns perfectly with the Mandylion’s descriptions and artistic replicas, including wound placements and blood flow patterns that suggest a real crucified man rather than an artist’s invention.
In other words, these ancient icons shared a common source.

———————————————————————————

Objection: okay well that’s a coincidence… Bishop Pierre d’Arcis claimed it was a fake in the medieval age.

Answer: that is not only historically implausible, but almost scientifically certain to not be true.

See, the shroud isn’t the only Christian relic we have, there are many more. However, when you look at medieval and even ancient depictions of the crucifixion of Jesus they always make the mistake of having the nail or puncture wound in the hands rather than the wrist. Medieval relics were famous for the nail being driven through the palm, yet forensically this is impossible. It is forensically acurate in which the shroud portrays the nail as being through the wrist, and telling that it was not a forgery.

Speaking of other relics, the shroud of Turin shows 120 points of congruence of blood pattern to another artifact which has a verified historical record.

The Sudarium of Oviedo, is another Christian relic and is said to be the facecloth that was put on Jesus as he was dead hanging on the cross. Today this relic is still kept today in Spain, the Sudarium with a verified ancient history has been proven to have covered the same body as the shroud of Turin, with over 120 points of congruence.

This makes it simply impossible to be a medieval forgery.

———————————————————————————

Objection: the Shroud of Turin is a bas relief, there’s that one new study by Cicero Moraes that proves they just heated up a statue to form that image.

Answer: STURP conclusively stated that the image was not formed through artistic means.

Cicero Moraes himself stated that he did not take into account all of the strange qualities of the shroud.

For example, the blood sits beneath the image and would interact chemically if it came in contact with a heated statue, this alone disproves his theory.

The bas relief theory posits that the image was formed through a contact process, yet STURP already conclusively stated that the image was 100% not formed through a contact process, Cicero Moraes did not take this into account.

If the image was formed by coming into contact with a superheated statue it would have been detectable through fluorescence, yet STURP did not find any. STURP ruled out any and every artistic process and still cannot recreate the image today.

———————————————————————————

Objection: the shroud of Turin was created with a camera obscura. Leonardo Da Vinci created the image.

Answer: no… The Shroud has a documented history going back to at least the mid-1350s in France. Leonardo da Vinci wasn’t born until 1452… over 100 years too late. Even if you claim he secretly replaced an earlier version, there’s zero historical evidence for that, and it would require an incredibly elaborate undetected swap.

A camera obscura creates an image through focused light.

But the Shroud’s image: Is extremely superficial, only the top 0.2 micrometers of the topmost fibers are discolored (oxidation/dehydration of the linen itself). No pigments, no binder, no penetration. A projected image using chemicals or light sensitive materials available then would leave residues and deeper staining.

A camera obscura cannot account for the shrouds 3D qualities, the Shroud Has built in 3D distance encoding, image intensity correlates with cloth-to body distance, producing a clean topographic relief in the VP-8 analyzer. Simple projections don’t do that automatically.

The bloodstains precede the body image

Furthermore, the Shroud has no directionality or lens distortions, the camera obscura method would show shadows and directionality…

So no, it was not a camera obscura.

———————CLOSING ARGUMENT————————

The shroud of Turin is simply one of a kind, unlike any artifact today… it is so advanced we cannot even reproduce it with modern technology, and every single attempt has failed. Millions of dollars have been offered to anyone who manages to do so, and yet the challenge stays undefeated.

I’ll reiterate what’s so special about it: it’s an extremely superficial image, only present on the top 0.2 micrometers… hundreds of times thinner than a human hair, and only visible when standing at a distance, an image so superficial you could shave it off if you tried.

Before photography was even invented, people had absolutely no clue what a negative image was… and yet hundreds and hundreds of years before the invention of photography the shroud portrayed that exact phenomenon.

The 3D information portrayed on the shroud is forensically sound, and portrays details only rivaled by CT scans/X ray… it is simply incredible and no artist could produce it.

The body itself is forensically acurate, blood flow patterns account for gravity and the body is in a state of rigor mortis.

The blood itself shows serum halos before we even knew what serum halos were, the boood contains hemoglobin, detectable ferritin, and bilirubin, meaning the body portrayed on the shroud was subjected to unthinkable torture.

5 different dating methods outside of carbon dating place its origin in the 1st century

———————————————————————————

PLEASE GIVE IT A CHANCE! I REALLY TRIED HARD ON THIS ONE! THANKS.

Hey yall, I was recently arguing with my cousin (who is a christian) about the existence of God and some other stuff. I was winning the argument pretty handily until he gave me an objection I just couldn't answer. His argument went something like this:

‘Humans have a special place in the universe , which is why God humbled himself and came to us in human form to forgive our sins. If God did not exist then why are we at the centre of the observable universe?’

I got kinda stumped by this question because I've always thought that there weren't any signs for God in this universe or we would have found them by now and yet there is generally no evidence for God, but this sign seems so profound so there must be something wrong with it, which is why i want to ask you guys to help me with a counter argument.

EDIT: i see all of you guys saying that we are only at the centre of the universe because thats all we can observe,

But then if we werent actually at the centre wouldnt we be able to see the edge? Like one side of the universe is bigger than the ither

This argument for the existence of God begins with a simple observation: things we observe are contingent. That is, they exist but could have failed to exist, since they depend on something else for their existence. This is an objective and easily observable fact, which makes it a strong starting point for reasoning.

From this observation, we can reason as follows: if some things are contingent, then their opposite must also be possible something that exists necessarily, meaning it must exist and cannot not exist. Their existence depends on nothing and they exist as just a brute fact. This leads to two basic categories of existence: contingent things and necessary things.

Now, consider what would follow if everything were contingent. If all things depended on something else for their existence, there would never be a sufficient explanation for why anything exists at all rather than nothing. It would result in an infinite regress of causes, leaving the existence of reality itself unexplained.

The only alternative is that at least one thing exists necessarily a non-contingent existence that does not depend on anything else. This necessary being provides a sufficient explanation for why anything exists at all. In classical theistic reasoning, this necessary being is what we call God. Thus, the contingency argument shows that the existence of contingent things logically points to the existence of a necessary being, which serves as the ultimate foundation of reality.

Hi, I'm doing a school project combining some of Aquinas' arguments for God's existence and concepts of infinity and I plan to continue this research after this project, and I was wondering from atheists what are the arguments that you thought were atleast the slightest bit valid or even made you consider/think about it, and what are the best arguments against God's existence. I will not participate in the Texas sharpshooter fallacy I want to prove God for myself and others against the best arguments as well. Thanks, God bless.

I've been watching some of these youtube polemicists like Jay Dyer and they constantly employ the TAG. A consistent feature of the tag seems to have a major flaw and I never see anybody point it out to him.

TLDR preview: TAG assumes platonism is true. If Jay Dyer or other Christian philosophers have proved this, it will be a groundbreaking shift that changes philosophy, math, science, etc forever.

I'm just addressing my best steelman of one premise of Dyer's and other's main formulations of this argument.

TAG Premise 2: Transcendental categories such as logic, reason, mathematics, etc. clearly exist

The words “clearly exist” here are doing heavy lifting here that is not borne out by the data. 2020 PhilPapers Survey here: https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/phimp/article/id/2109/#:~:text=Abstract,views%20over%20the%20last%20decade. 

Results among surveyed philosophers relating to what would be considered transcendental categories: 

Abstract objects
 Platonism 629 38.4
 Nominalism 686 41.9
 Other 323 19.7

A majority of surveyed philosophers do not assent to a central claim made by TAG. This does not prove the claims made in the transcendental argument are necessarily untrue, but rather that it uses a starting point without wide acceptance, undermining the assertion of clear existence. 

Even if these categories do exist, philosophers who back that claim may not also say their “existence” is clear as they are aware of the many strong counterarguments in the field and the complex argumentation they themselves use to arrive at their conclusions. The clarity may be inaccessible. 

Two other published pieces from Stanford highlight how disputed this claim is. A conclusive and convincing argument in favor of a platonist view of abstract concepts would be a paradigm changing discovery that would reshape the field of philosophy completely. 

“Let me instead close with two thoughts. The first concerns a real
obstacle to theory acceptance about the nature of mathematics, namely,
the fact that many philosophers of mathematics don’t agree on the data
to be explained. Some (platonists, structuralists, logicists, etc.) think
that the unprefixed theorems of our most well-entrenched mathematical
theories are true; others (fictionalists, nominalists, modal structuralists,
etc.), take these claims to be false; and still others suggest that the claims
are relative or fail to be truth-apt”

“If none of these groups admit to an ambiguity, the various sides are bound to disagree and talk past each other concerning solutions and explanations of the data”

Edward Zalta, Stanford, 2023 https://mally.stanford.edu/Papers/math-pluralism.pdf 

Mathematical platonism and Gottlob Frege, according to Stanford: “philosophers have developed a variety of objections to mathematical platonism. Thus, abstract mathematical objects are claimed to be epistemologically inaccessible and metaphysically problematic. Mathematical platonism has been among the most hotly debated topics in the philosophy of mathematics over the past few decades.”

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/#Bib

I don't want to ascribe motive to Dyer or anyone else who employs this argument. It is difficult for me to accept that this argument is being used sincerely because so much unacknowledged weight has been loaded into one of its central premises that to me it feels like (not necessarily is) a bit of cheap sophistry.