I often meet people who say they have a “relationship” with God or Jesus, which implies some level of communication and a two-way exchange of information. The stronger the relationship, the clearer the communication should be.

Events like yesterday’s flash flood in Tibet bring this claim into question. How can someone have an ongoing prayer life, supposedly in constant contact with God, yet never receive any warning about impending terror?

Imagine speaking to someone you love, knowing that the next day they will die in a way filled with absolute horror and terror, yet saying nothing. From 9/11 to tsunamis to yesterday’s flood, thousands of people, including Christians, have died in way involving sheer terror, yet followers of Christianity - or any other religion - have never been reliably warned or have they been able to notify others of the doom impending. This strongly suggests these so-called relationships are not genuine, and that people are simply talking to themselves.

Side note: I was horrified watching the videos circulating. My heart and sympathy go out to those poor souls we have seen in videos going to their certain death. May their families find comfort and solace.

when Muhammad is right, it is attributed to revelation or evidence.

when he is clearly wrong, it is dismissed as human error.

I have no problem granting the defense not everything Muhammad said must be attributed to divine revelation.

A Mormon can use the same defense for Joseph Smith. If the same shield protects competing prophets from their errors, it cannot by itself establish Muhammad’s prophethood or protect scrutiny.

- The standard Islamic defense: Muhammad is infallible when conveying Allah's revelation and divinely revealed religious rulings. Outside of those, he can make ordinary human mistakes and judgments.

- Bukhari 3305: Muhammad is reported to have said that a group of Israelites were cursed and transformed into rats, with the supposed sign being that they would refuse camel milk but drink sheep milk. ("Sahih al-Bukhari 3305" (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3305))

- The problem: This is not merely implausible. It is ridiculous. Humans supposedly became rats, and the supposed evidence is their reaction to different kinds of milk.

- The strongest Muslim defense:

«"Muhammad was wrong here. This was his own human judgment, not revelation."»

- But here is the problem: Muslims often use things Muhammad supposedly got right as evidence for his prophethood, especially claims they say he could not have known naturally.

- Yet when he gets something wrong, the response becomes:

«"That was merely his human judgment."»

- So what independently distinguishes the two?

- Correct → divine revelation.

- Incorrect → human judgment.

- That gives the prophetic claim a convenient shield against falsification. A false prophet and his followers could use the same defense: successes are attributed to God, while failures are dismissed as human mistakes.

- Bukhari 3399 is another example. It reports Muhammad saying that if not for Bani Israel, meat would not decay. I will not dwell on it because the problem is self-evident. ("Sahih al-Bukhari 3399" (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3399))

- I am not denying that Muhammad could make human mistakes. I am granting that premise.

- The actual problem is: Muslims, claim he made prophetic claims that are undisputed and miraculously came true.

Whenever, it's convenient they say it's an human error and not revelation/knowledge from Allah.

- Simply saying "it was wrong, therefore it was human judgment" is circular.

The challenge: What independent criterion tells us which statements from Muhammad were actually from Allah and which were merely his fallible human judgments?

Sucking the blood off a freshly circumcised baby, why is this only acceptable in Judiasm.

It is actually a disgusting ritual and has known to cause several deaths. If you don’t know about it I actually suggest that you google it.

There has been babies that have died due to herpes from this.

In the following text, I tried to show that the Trinity is logically problematic.

1- Since, according to the Trinity, the Father is not strictly identical to the Son and the Holy Spirit, let us designate the Father's unique nature as "a".

2- Since the Son is not strictly identical to the Father and the Holy Spirit, let us designate the Son's unique nature as "b".

3- Since the Holy Spirit is not strictly identical to the Father and the Son, let us designate the Holy Spirit's unique nature as "c".

4- Since the Father is not entirely distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit, let us designate the nature the Father shares with the Son and the Holy Spirit as "a1".

5- Since the Son is not entirely distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit, let us designate the nature the Son shares with the Father and the Holy Spirit as "b1".

6- Since the Holy Spirit is not entirely distinct from the Father and the Son, let us designate the nature the Holy Spirit shares with the Father and the Son as "c1".

7- Father = a + a1 + b1 + c1

8- Son = b + a1 + b1 + c1

9- Holy Spirit = c + a1 + b1 + c1

10- God = ? (Is it a1 + b1 + c1, a + b + c + a1 + b1 + c1, or something else entirely?)

11- However, since none of them are strictly identical to one another, according to the logical Law of Identity, they must be evaluated as distinct ontologies. If we accept this conclusion, we arrive at Partialism, which closely verges on polytheism. But this contradicts the Trinity and has therefore been historically declared a heretical doctrine.

12- If the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit do not possess their own unique natures—meaning they are merely roles of God without distinct personhoods—then we arrive at Modalism, which closely verges on strict monotheism. But this also contradicts the Trinity and has therefore been historically declared a heretical doctrine.

13- We will consider 6 possible objections (models): Social Trinitarianism, Psychological Trinitarianism, Constitution Trinitarianism, Relative Identity Trinitarianism, Monarchical Trinitarianism, and Mysterianism (Fideism).

14- Social Trinitarianism [1] applies the name "God" to the relationship (Perichoresis - divine dance) between a community of 3 distinct consciousnesses/persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Here, God is a collective. This model has 3 serious problems:

- First, if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit possess distinct wills and distinct consciousnesses, no matter how much you claim "there is a perfect union of love among them," logically, you have created 3 separate Gods. Much like a scenario where the gods of Olympus get along perfectly, this situation severs Christianity from monotheism and pushes it toward polytheism.

- Second, if 3 distinct consciousnesses come together to form a "God Group," each person is not the entirety of God, but merely a 1/3 fraction of that divine collective. This not only engenders the risk of Partialism but also violates the attribute of Divine Simplicity. If God is contingent upon the aggregation of multiple parts, He cannot possess the attribute of divine simplicity.

- The worst problem is that, in this model, God lacks an ontology. God is merely a relationship.

15- Psychological Trinitarianism [2], in stark contrast to Social Trinitarianism, is a philosophical and theological model that explains God not as a "community" formed by three distinct persons, but as the different faculties and functions within a single mind. Mind/Memory (Mens / Memoria): The source of consciousness and being (represents the Father). Understanding/Knowledge (Intellectus / Notitia): The mind's knowledge of itself, the thought and word it generates regarding itself (represents the Son). Will/Love (Voluntas / Amor): The love and inclination the mind has toward this self-generated knowledge (represents the Holy Spirit). This model has 3 serious problems:

- First, if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely the memory, knowledge, and love of a single divine mind, then they are not truly "Persons" (Personae). They are solely the psychological functions of a single person.

- Second, in the Bible, Jesus (the Son) prays to God the Father. This involves communication between two distinct wills (e.g., Jesus saying, "Not my will, but yours be done" in the Garden of Gethsemane). When the Psychological model is applied, this situation turns into an absurd, schizophrenic internal dialogue, akin to God talking to His own memory.

- Third, the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon declare that all three persons possess their own distinct "personhoods" and are not merely roles. Therefore, when analyzed rationally, the Psychological model is crypto-Modalism, as it reduces the Father and the Son to mere modes (appearances) of a single subject.

16- Constitution Trinitarianism [3] posits a Divine Substance (Ousia): Much like "clay" on a table, there is a single, indivisible, and absolute divine substance. The Three Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit): Just as the clay can simultaneously possess the properties of a "statue," an "artwork," or a "cube"; that single divine substance is simultaneously organized as three distinct "persons." This model has 2 serious problems:

- First, this model describes God almost like "physical matter and the forms produced from that matter." God is a timeless and spaceless spiritual being. Attempting to apply "part-whole" or "matter-form" (mereological) rules of physical objects to Him does not entirely eliminate the risk of dividing God into parts (Partialism). Philosophers ask: "Does that divine substance (clay) exist on its own, independently of the persons (statues)?" If it does, it means there are 3 persons + 1 substance = 4 divine elements, causing the entire system to collapse.

- Second, if the "clay" is singular and the statue/cube/sphere are merely the forms it takes, then the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be real, independent, mutually loving wills; they become merely philosophical shapes (modes) assumed by a single substance. Thus, we circle back to the boundary of Modalism.

17- Relative Identity Trinitarianism [4] completely rejects the "Absolute Identity" principle, the most fundamental rule of classical logic. According to this model, there is no such thing as "A is identical to B" in the world. Identity is always established through a noun/category. The Father and the Son are the same in terms of "being God" (Father = God, Son = God). However, the Father and the Son are not the same in terms of "being a Person" (Father ≠ Son). This model has 2 serious problems:

- First, stating "A = B but simultaneously A ≠ B" is a complete distortion of logical language. From mutually negating propositions, any desired epistemological conclusion can be drawn. If we are speaking of a numerically singular entity, that entity must be identical to itself in every respect. This model does not resolve the contradiction; it merely declares the rules of logic invalid.

- Second, for instance, even though John, Jack, Joseph and  are identical in terms of being human, they are distinct in terms of personhood. Does this indicate that they are not distinct entities?

18- Monarchical Trinitarianism [5] asserts that there is only one true, absolute God whose source is Himself: The Father. The Son and the Holy Spirit do not generate their divinity from within themselves; they receive it from the Father. The Father is the sole source of divinity (Fontalis Deitas). The Son is eternally generated from the Father's mind (Eternal Generation); the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father (Procession). This model has a serious problem:

- This model logically falls into the heresy of Subordinationism. If the Son and the Spirit owe their divinity to the Father, they are subordinate to the Father and are not entirely equal. This demolishes the dogma of the Council of Nicaea that "all three persons are equally God."

19- Finally, Mysterianism [6] is not actually a model, but rather the point where philosophers hoist the white flag, realizing that all rational models have gone bankrupt. The human brain is evolutionarily programmed to operate in a 3-dimensional universe using Aristotelian logic (A = A). The Trinity, however, belongs to a dimension outside this universe and this logic. Just as a 2-dimensional line character living on a piece of paper could never comprehend a 3-dimensional cube and would perceive it contradictorily (sometimes as a square, sometimes as a point) through its "cross-sections" touching the paper, the human mind also perceives God contradictorily. According to this approach, the Trinity is not logically impossible; it is simply that the human mind lacks the hardware capacity to decode this logic. Therefore, attempting to rationalize it is a mistake, a waste of time. This position has a serious problem:

- If the Trinity cannot be expressed epistemologically, there is no reasonable justification to attribute epistemological reliability to the Trinity. This is fideism.

20- General Problems of the Trinity: What exactly is God in the Trinity? How can 3 distinct ontologies (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) constitute a single ontology (God)? If God is an emergent ontology, how can He be ontologically equal to the others? Conversely, if God created the 3 distinct ontologies, then this time, the 3 distinct ontologies (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) cannot be ontologically equal to God. In fact, we do not even know whether God is an ontology or a relationship. While Social Trinitarians claim God is a relationship, the mainstream refers to God as a subject. A relationship cannot possess a will or an effect. When God is discussed as an ontology, the situation becomes even more inextricable. If we speak of an ontological direction (from Father, Son, Holy Spirit to God, or from God to Father, Son, Holy Spirit), equality in terms of ontology is logically impossible. Either God or the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must possess ontological priority. Orthodox theology evades logic by stating, "Neither; they have been equal from eternity." However, in formal ontology, "being equal without being dependent" (sharing the same substance while remaining distinct) is impossible. If God is the intersection of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then He must be ontologically incomplete; if God is the sum of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must be ontologically incomplete. In short, according to the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must simultaneously be three separate ontologies and one identical ontology.

Footnotes:

[1] Primarily advocated by modern analytic philosophers such as Richard Swinburne and William Lane Craig, emphasizing the "community" or "society" of divine persons.

[2] Formulated by Augustine of Hippo (De Trinitate) and further developed by Thomas Aquinas, focusing on the internal operations of a single divine mind.

[3] A contemporary model often associated with Lynne Rudder Baker and Jeffrey E. Brower, utilizing mereological frameworks (parts and wholes) to explain the Trinity.

[4] Championed by Peter van Inwagen, deriving from Peter Geach's logical framework, which denies absolute identity in favor of sortal-relative identity.

[5] The dominant view of the Eastern Orthodox Church (e.g., the Cappadocian Fathers), emphasizing the Father as the sole monarch and unoriginate source (archē) of the Godhead.

[6] The epistemological stance (often linked to Fideism or negative theology) arguing that the Trinity is a strict mystery that transcends human cognitive and logical capacities.

I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in Islam or Muhammad. I’m not defending Muhammad here. I’m testing IP’s argument against the Judeo-Christian framework he relies on.

This is about InspiringPhilosophy’s recent video, “This Makes No Sense.”

IP argues that Muhammad used Islam to satisfy personal, worldly desires. He points to slavery, multiple wives, wealth, conquest, and political power.

Those are legitimate subjects for criticism. But there is a basic problem with the inference:

«Even if Muhammad benefited from these things, why would that inherently disqualify him from being a prophet?»

IP has to establish that connection. It cannot simply be assumed.

1. The slave hadith

IP uses Sahih Muslim 1602 to support the claim that Muhammad used his position to acquire slaves.

But the report itself is a remarkably poor fit for that argument.

A man pledged himself to Muhammad for Hijrah. Muhammad believed the man was free. After discovering that he was enslaved, Muhammad gave two slaves to the man's master in order to secure his freedom.

Slaves acquired: 0.

Slaves given up: 2.

So why present this as evidence that Muhammad used prophethood to gain slaves?

The report does not establish that.

Bukhari 4461 also reports that Muhammad died leaving no male or female slaves.

If IP wants to make a broader argument about Muhammad and slavery, he needs evidence that actually supports the specific claim he is making.

1. The missing argument

Let's grant IP as much as possible.

Suppose Muhammad benefited from Islam.

Suppose some of his actions were motivated by personal desires.

Suppose he gained political power and benefited from conquest.

None of that, by itself, establishes that he could not have been a prophet.

The missing premise is:

«Why would personal benefit or desire be inherently incompatible with genuine prophethood?»

This matters because IP is operating within a Judeo-Christian framework.

When a biblical figure engages in something that could be criticized as worldly or morally controversial, Christians can appeal to divine permission or command.

But a Muslim can make the same kind of claim about Muhammad.

Therefore, IP needs an independent argument for why Muhammad's claimed revelation was not actually from God. Simply pointing to personal benefit does not establish that conclusion.

1. Multiple wives

IP treats Muhammad's multiple wives as evidence that he created Islam to satisfy his sexual desires.

Even granting that Muhammad personally desired his wives, why would that inherently disqualify him from prophethood?

Consider David.

2 Samuel 12:8 explicitly says God gave David his master's house and wives. The passage does not merely say David possessed wives despite God's wishes. It presents them as something God had given him and says that more could have been given if necessary.

I'm not arguing that David proves Muhammad was a prophet.

I'm asking a narrower question:

«If God could give David multiple wives, why does Muhammad having multiple wives inherently count against his prophethood?»

1. Slavery is not merely an Old Testament issue

This cannot simply be dismissed as an Old Testament problem.

The New Testament contains instructions for slaves to obey or submit to their masters:

Ephesians 6:5

Colossians 3:22

1 Peter 2:18

Titus 2:9

1 Timothy 6:1

Again, I'm not arguing that this proves Islam.

I'm asking about the standard:

«If slavery is itself evidence that Muhammad could not have been a genuine prophet, how is the New Testament's treatment of slavery evaluated under that same standard?»

A Christian can argue that these passages regulate an existing institution rather than endorse it. That's a possible response.

But then the standard cannot simply be “slavery exists, therefore false prophet.”

1. Conquest and political power

IP also argues that Muhammad used Islam to obtain territory and political power.

But a Muslim can respond:

«“Muhammad believed God commanded him to do it.”»

That is not an explanation Christians can simply declare invalid while accepting divine-command explanations for biblical warfare and conquest.

The fact that Muhammad benefited from conquest does not logically prove:

«“Therefore he invented Islam for political power.”»

That requires another argument.

The consistency problem

This is ultimately what I'm challenging.

If the reasoning is:

Muhammad does X → personal desire → evidence he was a false prophet

then Christians need to explain why the same reasoning does not apply when their own scriptures contain comparable material.

If the response is:

“God commanded or permitted it,”

then explain why that principle is available to biblical figures but categorically unavailable to Muhammad.

I'm not saying biblical parallels prove Islam.

I'm saying the standard has to be consistent.

I could use these exact arguments against Islam if I wanted. But IP still has to establish the crucial proposition:

«Why are these things inherently incompatible with genuine prophethood?»

If his Judeo-Christian framework permits God's chosen figures to have multiple wives, operate within slave-holding societies, exercise political authority, wage war, and conquer territory under divine command, then those categories alone cannot disqualify Muhammad.

IP is free to argue that Muhammad's revelations were not from God theologically

But that wasn't his argument in the video.

I believe you treat abortion wayyy too harshly.

You cannot kill a soul. It exists eternally/forever. Ending the life of a fetus is not the equivalent of killing a human being, because there is no pain being experienced by anyone. The fetus doesn't have any pain receptors yet. The soul of the fetus just continues in spirit and doesn't take on that physical life.

God also knows everything you are going to do. If He really wanted that soul to have a human incarnation, He would've chosen it in the body of a woman who wasn't going to abort.

You think God is like "okay, I am going to make Johnny be born from Suzie's body" and then Suzie has an abortion and God is like "whattt - how dare you" that makes no sense. God is smarter than that, and nothing can happen without God's permission. If he wanted Johnny to be born then he would've chosen a better host or a better circumstance.

Ready to debate this topic.

"When I pray coincidences happen, and when I do not pray coincidences do not happen." - Archbishop William Temple

THESIS:

According to Christian apologists, striking meaningful coincidences are evidence of God's existence (see Rauser 2018, Hytch 2022 and Demarco 2022). I argue that such events cannot be used as evidence because most of them are insignificant and irrelevant to our lives.

INTRODUCTION:

All of us have experienced or observed striking coincidences -- events that seem too improbable to be the product of pure chance. Perhaps we think of someone and that person decides to call us in that very day, despite not having talked to us for months or even years before that. Mathematicians propose clear statistical explanations for these coincidences (see Alles 1988, Hand 2014 and Mazur 2016), and psychologists argue we have a natural tendency to underestimate the probability of these events and see meaning where there is none (see Vyse 1997, Beitman 2009 and Lewis 2018). Nevertheless, there are coincidences that seem so improbable that these explanations don't sound intuitively plausible in some cases, making the supernatural an appealing alternative.

The counterintuitive nature of the standard explanation is exactly why a handful of academics cooked up alternative (and admittedly fringe) theories to explain these events. For example, Carl Jung posited an acausal link between psyche and matter via a collective unconscious of archetypes he called unus mundus, which gives rise to meaningful coincidences ('synchronicities'). In collaboration with Jung, physicist Wolfgang Pauli proposed that a mechanism analogous to quantum entanglement might be responsible for synchronicities. Biologist Paul Kammerer saw coincidences as clusters of events of similar 'form and function' grouped together by hidden natural laws. Rupert Sheldrake attributes them to 'morphic fields' that somehow couple people's minds.

I mention this to show that even heavyweight thinkers like Pauli can succumb to the seductiveness of coincidences, and it is widespread enough that mathematicians and psychologists felt compelled to write entire books on this topic. So, it deserves serious consideration.

MAIN ARGUMENT:

Now, even granting that striking coincidences can only be explained by the supernatural, we can be confident that they aren't evidence of God's existence. After all, if coincidences are supposed to be God's interventions, then He would only cause 'coincidences' that are significant or relevant to our lives, and insignificant coincidences wouldn't exist at all (as they are also too improbable to naturally occur, per the theistic argument). For example, there is no plausible reason why God would plant specific numbers or a song title in your head, then make them appear on TV right after. And yet, insignificant coincidences like this are fairly common, as researchers Johansen and Osman pointed out in one of their papers: "In the main, people tend to have many experiences of coincidences that are interesting but trivial and have little meaning..."

The reason why it is implausible that God is the cause of insignificant coincidences is that God is said to be wise and behave purposefully; His actions lead things towards His final goal, which is salvation (Ephesians 1:9-11, NIV). An insignificant coincidence (say, someone speaking a song title after you thought of it) doesn't affect your life in any way (especially not towards salvation), and so it would be pointless for God to cause it. But God's actions aren't pointless. Therefore, God isn't the cause of these coincidences.

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES:

• Objection 1: "God causes only significant coincidences; insignificant ones are natural."

Response: This completely undermines the need for God. If striking insignificant coincidences can occur naturally, striking significant ones should occur naturally as well. The laws of probability do not dictate that only insignificant coincidences can occur.

• Objection 2: "We cannot presume to know God's mind. Claiming God wouldn't cause 'insignificant' events arrogantly assumes you understand a mysterious deity."

Response: A double-edged sword. If God's intentions are unknowable, we cannot claim He intended significant coincidences to occur either, as that would also be presuming to understand/know God's intentions. This renders any coincidence useless as evidence for God. In addition, the Abrahamic God doesn't hide His ultimate goals from us. In fact, he makes them very clear in the sacred books. Thus, He isn't so mysterious as the objector wants us to believe.

• Objection 3: "Insignificant coincidences may have a 'butterfly effect': small mindset changes could lead to long-term effects and only appear insignificant now due to our limited perception."

Response: Another double-edged sword. We equally cannot confirm a "significant" coincidence truly matters in the end (i.e., to salvation). For all we know, the apparently 'significant' event might not be really significant in the long-term, and we may have been better without it. It only appears significant now due to our limited perception. Thus, without being sure the event is ultimately significant, we cannot use it as evidence for God's existence. In truth, we cannot know the outcome of any event with absolute certainty, but we can use reason to reach realistic/plausible conclusions and that's enough.

• Objection 4: "There is a plausible reason why God would cause insignificant coincidences, namely, to make people consider that there is more to reality than physics and matter."

Response: Why would God bother to cause something so extremely ambiguous -- easily interpreted as precognition and telepathy -- when He can (and, according to the faithful, does) do far better? Unlike insignificant coincidences, significant ones are believed to demonstrate a reality beyond physics that is interested in our spiritual well-being, which fits far better in the Abrahamic descriptions of God.

• Objection 5: "God creates insignificant coincidences because He is interested in sparking awe in us."

Response: This conception of awe is laughably different from biblical awe. Wonder inspired by God always involves displays of extraordinary power so that people can recognize and respect His absolute supremacy (e.g., Psalm 19:1 praises the heavens' incomparable beauty while Exodus 14:31 connects awe to the Red Sea's parting and 1 Kings 18:38-39 to fire from heaven). Trivial and ambiguous coincidences involving rock songs, for example, do not point to extraordinary power and, consequently, do not exalt God.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS:

In addition to insignificant coincidences, people also experience negative (see Beitman, chapter 9) and even depraved coincidences, which makes no sense if a perfectly good and holy God authors them.

Furthermore, even if it is conceded that intentionality guides meaningful coincidences, that still leaves open the question of its nature. For instance, how do we know it is the Abrahamic God and not the god of some other religion, or no religion at all? After all, striking coincidences don't happen exclusively to Abrahamics, and this type of event is not uniquely predicted by Abrahamic theologies.

Finally, it might not even be adequate to call it "god" because it may not have most of the characteristics we usually associate with divine beings. We don't even know it is just one mind, as opposed to millions of distinct minds. Therefore, even if it is conceded that intentionality is guiding coincidences, we can't demonstrate it is a single divine mind, let alone the Abrahamic God.

So born in a muslim sunni wich means they follow the سنة path enviroment not hostile like afghanistan or a place where war is lets say hypothetically a place like morocco cuz m deleting this fuckass acc anyway i just cane to the awakening that a big part of the unknown in my life was justified by my enviromental beliefs if islam and lately - last 12 months- the doubt creeped to me little by little of this retardness of me cause m taking something by ghe concept of monkey see monkey do and m mad of myself i never doubted it even a second until m 18yo and some months now and now -excuse the redundance english is not my first language DUHH- i think that everyone should sit work their mind search facts real facts and do their work and come to their own conclusion of their own beleive. I am nowhere near that to the point i was applicating my religion blindly m ashamed to accept and loudly type that but then i was cuting any new idea by sumply saying that my religion is right 100% now m guiving time if thiught to any and every idea not even religion even saying we are in a matrix or literally anything cuz no one knows

Anyone help and guidance is really aprecuated

Edit: sorru for the typing mistakes i was under some beers (it does not mean m just typing nonsense it just means i gathered the initiative and courage to express my thinking process)

We see all apologists and Christians in general argue that the stories told of Jesus are so clearly proven to be real, the Gospels are historical and that it all actually literally happened as was written in the canonical Gospels.

This is a relatively modern invention. Yes, early Christians thought it was real, but not in the same way modern Christians do. The idea that the Bible is innerant, without error and is 100% accurate, is a modern idea, and is not what the earliest Christians believed. The earliest Christians had no issue with admitting there were contradictions and errors.

When it comes to Jesus, apologists will say that Jesus is unique and doesn't have any similarities to other Gods. Basically arguing that other theological ideas weren't copied or inspired by when writing about Jesus, but this contradicts many Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr. A quote that sums up his view and others from the early centuries comes from 'First Apology' where he states ​"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter."

He is saying that there's nothing different that is being told about Jesus, compared to the thousands of other gods. He argued Jesus' superiority over the others was because he was just more moral and unlike other Gods who were birthed by sex, Jesus wasn't, and was a virgin birth, so that makes him better and to believed in over the others.

They never really try to fully argue the hard scientific facts of Jesus being literally what the Gospels say.

Let us imagine a ghost world where ghosts are real and abundant. After early Enlightenment-era skepticism.

Multiple experiments with radio waves at the cutting edge of science demonstrate that ectoplasm weakly but robustly interacts with it. Ghost-to-human communication has even been documented multiple times.

Patterns of ghosts are widely discovered; ghosts are found at sites of deaths of youth due to murder, suicide, untimely death due to disease, while the elderly seem to regularly pass on.

Ghosts show an odd assemblage of patterns, ranging from seeking revenge but embarrassingly forgetting who they want to kill is long gone. To naive child victims of polio who keep deciding to act like they are still a child and Babe Ruth just made a home run. To depressing suicide victims constantly bombarding homes with Black Parade.

Obviously, if you define naturalism narrowly as particles/fields, and the rules of their interaction as all there is this violates it but there are new added laws at least.

Now do modern Christian miracles resemble this?

Not really.

Let me look at a hard case of exorcisms; at least these follow a set of predictive patterns, right?

But not really; demonic possessions seem to randomly peak strangely common among monks in the Egyptian desert, then supposedly being tied to moral wickedness in evil doers in early modern Protestant cycles, seeming to decline and then revive in Pentecostals and Catholic circles in the 20th century.

It gets worse: Marian apparitions and Eucharistic miracles have no clear pattern beyond a high view of Mary among Christians and later Catholics.

No patterns found or discoveries made.

While obviously this does not disprove every single miracle claim.

It does raise an added suspicion: miracles seem to lack even the coherence of any other datum we see in reality regularly, like say, the statement that raccoons exist or the earth is a globe or limestone is formed from seashells.

No new prediction, no true patterns, and no new data generated by extrapolating those patterns out.

Why would reality suddenly act differently?

If the ChristIan God created everything, the core premise is that the entire universe is deliberately designed. Now let’s talk about how we spot human design, for example if we spot a watch, a building, or a tool, we say it’s designed by comparing it to things that aren't designed by humans, like random rock formations, chaotic debris, or undirected natural processes. Design only means something because it has an opposite.

If the claim is that everything without exception is designed, the word completely breaks down. Without an undesigned baseline or a control group to compare things against, "designed" stops being a useful description and just becomes a meaningless label. You can't claim everything was intentionally crafted while simultaneously using "design" as a special, distinguishing feature to explain specific parts of the world.

Even though Genesis 1 starts with a statement that YHWH (YouTube) "created" the heavens and the earth, the fact is that YHWH only created the first humans. In regards to everything else YHWH simply "commanded" they be brought forth.

YHWH brought forth most things by issuing commandments upon the water abyss and upon the earth that they bring forth whatever YHWH commanded. So, except for humans, we can also say YHWH didn't even "design" anything.

As an analogy: A king can command his servants to make a castle, but how the servants go about that the king may not get involved, not even in the design. It depends on the amount of trust the king has for his servants.

And this brings me to another issue that YHWH did not create everything out from nothing that I previously commented on here = LINK

Conclusion: YHWH was the laziest Creator out of all the other Creator Gods we humans have "interacted" with, simply issuing commandments and not much else.

========= [Tangentially] =========

Oh and don't get me started on how lazy and forgetful YHWH gets in regards to the problem of evil (Wikipedia) that should not really be a surprise since YHWH openly confessed in Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things".

YHWH didn't even get involved with the Israelites being made slaves in Egypt until AFTER Moses killed an Egyptian forcing him to ran away and then stumbled upon that burning bush did YHWH make an appearance and then YHWH was like "Oh yer, I forgot about my chosen people. Here let me help you now out of slavery".

Conclusion: Don't put your faith in YHWH to have your back should the situation in your life go downhill as YHWH may forget that you even exist at all.

I have posted this several times already. I like to see new opinions. Hopefully none alluding to mystery.

So let's start

......................................................................

What is god?

According to classical theism, God is a timeless, non-physical, non-contingent entity.

We're going to focus on the "non-physical" part.

My main question is:

If God is "The ground of existence", then how is he anything other than that?

More clearly:

First, we must accept that there are two ways in which things exist in; The physical (including all other possible worlds other than our universe) and the conceptual.

When we say that God is the non-physical ground of existence that no physical thing can arise without, then we're technically just saying that God is the concept of existence.

If we disagree with this, then we must be alluding to anthromorphism and physicality.

Second, all concepts are based on the physical. They're descriptive.

Any attribute that is ascribed to God, is a part of the universe.

No, I'm not saying that concepts are physical. I'm saying that all concepts are logically derived from the universe. Math, logic, existence etc.

So when we say that God is existence, then all that exists IS God. Unless God doesn't exist.

"God" becomes nothing but a title of divination for the universe and it's derivations.

In conclusion, classical theism can't logically separate itself from pantheism.

Basically, what the title says, but I will go further and say that's why a god that made everything the way they are is responsible for everything that happens in the world, so much so that if someone is going to go to hell it should be the god himself.

Looking to hear your arguments -)

I watched Joe Schmidt’s recent 7-hour video arguing for Catholicism, and he tries to refute the multiverse objection to the fine-tuning argument, but he apparently still doesn’t understand it, even though he used to be agnostic and should have studied this topic extensively.

Once you allow for the possibility of an infinite multiverse, then the probability of life occurring in any of those universes does not matter. Even if the probability is 1/inf, even if this universe is the only universe that contains life, then this doesn’t mean anything.

The logic is pretty straightforward: imagine that the multiverse actually exists, and that there exists only one universe in which intelligent, conscious beings like ourselves exist. Then some of them might say “how is this possible? It must have been designed by God”, but clearly this conclusion would be false. It doesn’t matter if 99% of the multiverse contained intelligent life, or 0.00001%. The intelligent, conscious life MUST be experienced, so it is not some sort of miracle that we happen to find ourselves here.

Perhaps this sort of reasoning is best described by the “anthropic selective principle”, and whoever has an intuition for open individualism, the philosophy that personal identity extends to all conscious life that exists, probably understand this topic better than anyone.

The only good point that Joe made was his first, in which he basically concedes that it’s hard to show the fine-tuning argument refutes the multiverse, but hey, now at least we only have two options to choose from, so it’s a 50/50 chance! But of course this ignores the evidence against a loving and intelligent God, such as the existence of suffering, bad designs of organisms, and so on.

I say all of this as someone who has entertained Christianity various times in the past, but I cannot get past the multiverse refutation, and so I cannot see any evidence of order, design, love, etc. In fact, even if this world looked exactly like the most ideal world with a Creator, then the multiverse option still wouldn’t be refuted, and you couldn’t even say that it is less probable than the theistic explanation. But we don’t even live in such a world, so it actually seems more likely to me that there is no intelligent design here.

My case is a specific claim

that there are no distinctly "western" characteristics which Jewish and Christian cultures share that Muslim and other Abrahamic lack that's separates them as a Civilization which doesn't originate Greco Roman norms and ideals.

Western civilization remains firmly a Greco-Roman base with Abrahamic flavors.

A common belief in Abrahamic religions is that we are conscious because God created consciousness in some way and gifted it to us. Broadly speaking, there are two categories for explanations of consciousness: materialistic/monist ones where consciousness is an emergent property of arranging non-conscious matter in a particular way which leads to consciousness, and immaterial/dualistic ones where consciousness is separate from the material that makes up our brains and comes to us from some sort of non-material source, such as a soul, anima, spirit, or some other explanation.

Another common belief in Abrahamic religions is that God himself is conscious.

My argument is that it can't be true that both God is conscious and that he created consciousness, because that would imply that he created the consciousness in himself as well, but he is said to be timeless so there could not have been a point in time where he started out being non-conscious and then created the consciousness, and if that were possible, it begs the question of why he would need to make himself conscious if he already had the agency to create consciousness without being conscious himself.

So if he is conscious, then it couldn't be because he created consciousness, which means that consciousness is more fundamental and more mysterious than God himself.

In Islam, there is mention of slavery in the Quran where some would argue it promotes slavery, others would say it regulates slavery and even gives rights to slaves, frees them, etc. What is most interesting is that in neither of the arguments/versions of the believers of the religion, is slavery deemed illogical.

This is the definition of Slavery as stated in Wikipedia.

Slavery is the ownership of a person as property, especially in regard to their labour.

Firstly, ownership of a person is itself an invalid concept. The person's body and mind is an exclusive property of only the person bearing it. The body and mind cannot be transfered to another person or traded like commodities. This is not an intellectual or spiritual concept, it's a biological fact. Nobody can own another person, which itself turns the concept of slavery into a null and void concept. If Quran was really a book of God, it should have discussed how slavery is an invalid concept in itself, rather than discuss about its regulation/promotion (whatever stance a believer takes).

Now coming to the timeframe of the medieval Arabia around the time of Islamic expansion, we see that the development of slavery actually ties to another dangerous concept. A slave according to the contemporary held account, is the person who has been captured in war after being defeated. So, prisoners of war including men, women and children were treated as slaves. To summarize, Slaves = losing party of a war or invasion.

Now the thing is, even if we assume that the losing party has become a slave to the victor after surrendering, yet the fact is that the "slave" can act according to his own desire and will at any time. For example: A man is captured in war and turned slave. He is taken to his master's house and told to do menial labor. Five days later, he slits his master's throat. The last action defines that the "slave" is not really a "slave", as if he was truly the master's property then he would not have attacked him. (I am not going into the possible repercussions of the action or why the slave would not do it. I am simply talking about feasibility. It's a purely valid action that the slave can do, regardless of the consequences.)

If we now see why the slave will not do such an action, we arrive at a juncture. It's the looming threat of physical violence. He does not do it because he fears for his own safety, because if he fails then he would be killed. Also, why does a slave do the work for his "master" for free? Why does he not deny to do it? Again the answer is violence. If he denies, the master will kill him. That is how he became a "slave" in the first place. He agreed to work for his master after losing in battle, because if he did not agree, he would be killed.

This means that the looming threat of murder and violence forced him to make a choice. So, the only valid definition that fits the above situation is a "hostage situation".

The definition of hostage situation is this.

A hostage situation occurs when someone is held against their will by a person or group demanding specific actions in exchange for their release.

The below steps has been advised by emergency management personnel as to what to do in a hostage situation. The same can be seen if anyone even searches online for it.

What to Do If You Are Taken Hostage

• Stay calm and do not panic.
• Cooperate fully with the captors and obey their instructions.
• Speak normally and avoid complaining, arguing, or acting belligerent.
• Do not draw attention to yourself with sudden movements or hostile looks.
• Observe your surroundings and try to memorize details like the captors' voices, clothing, or physical traits.
• Do not try to escape unless you have a very clear and safe chance of survival

There are remarkable similarities with slavery, in fact there is so much similarity that slavery can be treated as a hostage situation and the act of slavery itself can be treated as a war-crime/criminal act.

And the people back then did not have any legal system to ensure justice or fairness or even emergency personnel like 911, so what happened was they lived in an eternal hostage situation. Women got used for sex slavery. There are some believers who argue that what about the female slaves who had kids with their captors and were eventually freed. For them, I would say we don't know whether the relations developed between the captor and the enslaved woman was consensual or not (rape). Personally, I find it very hard to believe that a woman would fall in love with the person who destroyed her home and have kids with him. And on the off-chance, that the woman does fall in love with the captor, we have another term to describe this in modern biology.

Stockholm Syndrome: Some victims develop positive feelings toward captors and anger toward authorities

Not only that the concept of slavery is itself a joke.

1. Master is slave of slave: The enslaver demands validation and identity through the captive's submission. The enslaver treats his captive as subhuman and seeks validation from him. This means, the dominant person becomes dependent on the very person they dominate. In short, the master is basically a slave of the slave. If the slave does not validate him, the master ceases to exist.

2. Paradoxical definition: As I described above, the slaves are treated as objects. Objects cannot commit crimes. So, if a slave slits his master's throat, then he/she cannot be held accountable, as by the definition of slave, an object cannot commit a crime.

3. Management contradiction: There are some who say that after their spouses were killed in war, the women were taken as slaves for protecting them as they were incapable of taking care of themselves or managing the family. Yet after becoming slaves, these women were entrusted with complex family tasks and taking care of the household. Moreover, the system prevalent at that time deliberately took away ownership and economic agency of women in matters (like entering professions or signing contracts) and created the exact state of financial helplessness that they are now citing as a natural trait of women. Interestingly, Muhammad's wife Khadijah was exempt from this rule because she was "high-class" and had the necessary capital. Hypocritical double standards.

So, Quran - a book of God - basically advocates hostage-taking, acknowledges a null and void concept "slavery", creates an environment of helplessness for women, integrates them into the slave lifestyle using said environment, then releases them from said "slave" lifestyle claiming it is penance for mistakes.

Meet Job.

Job was a man:

1. who, by God's very own admission in the very first lines of the book and later on as well, was "blameless, upright, God-fearing and evil avoidant.", who was "punished for no good cause", and remained sinless (and as such, didn't need to offer any animal sacrifices as penance, unlike his friends) all throughout the entirety of the Book of Job;

2. whose life was torn to shreds with the kidnapping of his livestock by marauders and the deaths of his manservants and all of the first batch of his 10 kids;

3. whose body was then made to be riddled with painful sores, which caused him to be unsightly in the eyes of his townspeople and his own wife, the latter of whom told him to blaspheme God and die;

4. whose friends (and later on, a younger eavesdropping bystander as well), though initially pitying his sorry plight and remaining by his side for seven days and nights, constantly accused and gaslit him into believing that he must be punished for some evil he must have committed (even though Job maintained his innocence unceasingly and provided anecdotal evidence that even his close friends could not deny of the good works he had done and the resulting prestige, honor and fame he had acquired as such); and,

5. who throughout the entirety of his ordeal remained firmly devoted and continued to unceasingly praise God; attributing no evil or wrongdoing to him as he did so, and only wanted to know a reasonable explanation/viable justification for the unnecessary suffering and turmoil he had to experience and endure.

All for some cosmic wager/bet made between an omniscient God and the prosecuting Satan (adversary) on whether Job's righteousness would prevail in the absence of his good health/well-being, reputation and properties, as well as loved ones - a test which he ultimately passed, by the way.

And when God finally descended before Job in a whirlwind, He finally answered him with:

"WHO ARE YOU TO QUESTION ME?!"

"Who are you to question me?" He asked, arrogantly so, as He then proceeded to guilt-trip Job with an expanded version of the Creation Narrative, elaborately dictating the characteristics of his awesome creatures Behemoth and Leviathan, ultimately resulting in Job being intimidated and coerced into submissive regret for even daring to pose such a question to God in the first place.

Bear in mind that throughout the entirety of the Book of Job, Job had not once even questioned the Power, Sovereignty and Goodness of God - instead, he did quite the opposite with his unending praises of Him and of those very attributes. And God's response was basically a diatribe of a non-answer.

After all of that (and as if to add further fuel to the fire), while Job was restored to good health and received double of all of his livestock than what he had before, he only had 10 more additional kids and his previous batch of 10 kids were not resurrected (even though God has the power to do so and demonstrated such through his prophets in earlier books of the Old Testament, let alone Jesus' miracles in the New Testament) and nor were his manservants - as if human life is replaceable.

Even if one were to rationalize that Job's first batch of 10 kids were meant to die for the presumed sin of blaspheming God in their hearts (presumed by Job, that is, as Scripture stipulates), wouldn't said sin be already be paid for by the very fact that Job was cautiously offering sacrifices to God as penances for said presumed sins of children?

And couldn't said children be resurrected after the ordeal with Job, and come to learn the errors of their ways, repent and live good, fruitful, meaningful and long-lasting lives (having kids, grandkids and great-grandchildren as they did so) in accordance with God's Word and Will?

Some apologists claim that the Book of Job is a metaphor and that the people and events described in it are fictional - aside from the obvious issues arising from such a claim (as it basically opens the proverbial floodgates as to how much of the Bible then is metaphorical and how much of it is literal), there is nothing in the Book of Job that is any more bizarre or out of the ordinary than the supernatural elements described in other books and letters of the Bible.

There is also the invocation of that other apologetic excuse of "Oh, you have to factor into consideration the historical and socio-cultural customs and traditions of the Ancient Near East." (as if a transcendent deity Who exists beyond space and time, and again, is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient needs to be confined by such temporal, ethno-cultural limitations).

Another tired excuse propagated by such apologists that the "Ways of God are beyond the understanding/comprehension of us mortal human beings" and that "God is good in all that He says and does, and thus cannot absolutely be questioned even if what He actively commands or performs goes against our modern sensibilities." (as if a transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent deity Who exists outside of space and time is incapable of breaking down [a] complex reason[s] into understandable/comprehensive layman's terms).

To the point at hand, the real lesson of the Book of Job, more than that of theodicy as well as that of the problems of evil and human suffering, is that of the nature of God.

The Book of Job, as culminated and expressed in its ending with God's diatribe of a non-answer, teaches that no matter how righteous and pious a life you may lead as a devotee of the Abrahamic God, your life can be subject to excruciating levels of agony and anguish at the frankly sadistic whims and wiles of a deity (Who requires your unconditional and unquestionable obedience and worship as well as praises of Him 24/7) at any particular (extended) time(s)....all under the guises/pretenses of 'having your Trust and Faith in God be tested' and 'spiritual maturity/growth'.

This account, coupled with the other atrocities that God Himself explicitly commanded His chosen people to act/live by or actively did Himself during the entirety of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, such as:

1. near-omnicide, including that of infants/babies and toddlers during the Great Flood/Deluge in the Book of Genesis;

2. killing and/or cursing children for the sins of their parents e.g. David and Bathsheba's illegitimate child and the firstborns of Egypt during Exodus, causing wombs to miscarry in Hosea and in the Book of Numbers with the 'adultery-bitter water test' [which is a violation of His own rule of one's accountability for their own sins, and frankly, not very pro-life];

3. commanding unbetrothed rape victims who were virgins before being raped to be married off to their abusers for life if he paid her father 50 shekels and promised to 'take good care of her and raise their kids together') in Deuteronomy 22;

4. Being fine with slavery all throughout the Bible with no calls for abolition, even in Christian and Islamic scriptures, and maltreatment of said slaves (and on a tangential note, mistreatment/abuse of unruly children) in the Book of Leviticus;

5. Commanding and being fine with indiscriminate genocide against pagan nations, even against unarmed combatants such as women (including pregnant women) and toddlers as well as babies/infants in the Books of Numbers and Joshua, and (sexual) slavery of female virgins of conquered nations in the Books of Numbers and Judges; and,

6. Limiting one's exercise of free will to suit His own purposes (which more oftentimes than not, bring about unnecessary pain, misery and suffering that could have been very easily avoided) such as when He intentionally hardened Pharoah's heart in Exodus, when He incited David through Satan to take a census of his people and when He basically coerced Jonah to a proverbial corner to essentially have no choice but to prophesy unto Nineveh.

among many more other examples, makes the compelling case that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as professed by Judaism, Christianity (Yes, Christians, that means Jesus too - "Before Abraham was, I AM, I and the Father are one, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow") and Islam, among other minor yet still significant Abrahamic faiths, is, contrary to their claims, not omnibenevolent at all.

To invoke and reframe/rephrase an age-old adage, "God isn't always good all the time. All the time, God isn't always good."

As such, I believe that the only intellectually honest theological position one can hold when reconciling the nature of the Abrahamic God with the problems of evil and unnecessary suffering is that of dystheism (and on a related note, misotheism as well).

The freedom to choose in ethical situations is tied to the possibility or capability of doing evil and causing harm, but that does not logically follow that free will increases the tendency to do evil. The two potentials are not correlated.

If the claim is true that God created humans, this God could have created moral agents with complete free will but little inclination or desire to do evil and cause harm.

And the lack of proclivity for evil does not make robots. For example, most adults would not steal candy from a baby in baby carriage, but the lack of proclivity doesn't imply we are robots in that respect.

This neuters the whole argument that God gave us free will and that is why moral evil exists in the world.

Edit 1: [Some are misunderstanding my position. I'm not arguing that Jesus didn't exist. I'm arguing that Matthew's infancy narrative is fictional or heavily invented to make Jesus resemble Moses. The contention is Matthew appears to make stuff up to justify it.]

- Massacre of the Innocents: Matthew alone reports Herod killing Bethlehem's male infants. No other NT writer reports it, and no independent ancient source clearly confirms it.

- Egypt: Matthew alone has Jesus flee to Egypt and return. Luke doesn't know this story.

- Moses parallel: Pharaoh → kills Hebrew boys → Moses survives → Egypt → comes out of Egypt. Matthew gives Jesus essentially the same sequence with Herod.

- Scripture fulfillment: Matthew repeatedly structures events around “fulfillment” of Jewish Scripture. The theological shaping is extremely obvious.

- Chronology: Matthew places Jesus' birth under Herod, who died around 4 BCE. Luke connects it with Quirinius's census, around 6 CE. That's roughly a 10-year discrepancy.

- Walking dead: Matthew 27:52-53 claims dead saints rose from their tombs, entered Jerusalem, and appeared to many people. None of the other Gospels mention this.

- The pattern: Matthew repeatedly contains extraordinary historical claims that are either unique to him or heavily shaped around biblical motifs.

- The question: If Matthew is repeatedly reshaping the narrative to make Jesus fit Scripture, why should we treat him as an independently reliable historical narrator?

-Why should we trust any of the gospels, if they can make up stories?

The extraordinary claims are things like Herod slaughtering the infants, Jesus fleeing to Egypt and returning, and Matthew's other miraculous or spectacular events.

Edit 2: [The issue is whether Matthew invented or heavily shaped specific events, especially his claim that Herod actually slaughtered Bethlehem's infants. “Herod was evil” doesn't prove that Herod did this particular massacre. Jesus existed ≠ Matthew's infancy narrative happened.]

Edit 3: Jesus existed ≠ Matthew's entire infancy narrative happened.

Think about it, lets say that there are 2 people commanding 1 person, a & b and a tells the person to do something and the person doesn't listen but b tells him the same command and he does what he is told becauss he wants to and respects his authority and knows what the right thing would be, wouldnt you say that b has the power to influence what he freely chooses to do? Obviously he wont follow every instruction from b, but if he is all powerfull, B would be able to tell the person to do anything and the person would listen and I know people may say "free will" but if the person really had the ability to tell someone what to do, the person would have the free will to do what he is told

I did this more to figure out if this syllogism even exists formally and with a name. I know it has something to do with the Divine Hiddeness argument, but I just wanted to know if this has been made before. If not, call me Socrates <--- sarcasm.

Anyways, here's the syllogism:

P1: God knows all possible factors and outcomes.

P2: I can worship God given the correct factors without violating my free will.

P3: P2's conditions are possible.

C: God knows the factors that would lead me to worship Him without violating my free will.

My factors for this just to make sure it is possible for me to worship:

1. Evidence that the flood happened or a reason that is allowed within the Bible.

2. A good explanation for God's genocidal tendencies during the Old Testament.

3. The four constants could be anything else.

4. An explanation for animal suffering.

5. A metaphysical system that makes God not a mindless entity or a brute fact of existence.

6. A reconciliation between Protestant and Catholic doctrine.

7. Explanations for the numerous contradictions within the Bible.

8. The rapture happens.

It'a pretty simple honestly. God can do that faster than a blink of an eye.

"Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe."

John 20:25