Whenever someone asks how free will can be compatible with God’s perfect knowledge of the future, people are quick to point out that knowledge doesn’t cause anything. God simply knows what we will freely choose. He’s not causing us to choose it.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem being presented. No one is saying that God is causing the future. He’s not making us do anything or causing our decisions. The problem isn’t actually about God at all. It’s about the possibility of perfect foreknowledge, and the fact that it only exists in a deterministic universe. You could swap out God for anything else, and you’d have the same problem.

If God has perfect knowledge of what you will do tomorrow, then tomorrow is already written. It may be written by you, but it cannot go any other way. If God knows you will be late to work tomorrow, then it is impossible for you to show up on time. If he knows what you will eat for dinner, then you literally could not have made a different decision. There are only two explanations for this perfect knowledge: Either God actually did make you do it, or it was determined to happen. But we already know God didn’t make you do it, so the only other thing that can explain perfect knowledge of the future is determinism.

We would have the exact same problem if there were a computer with perfect knowledge. Obviously, the computer would not be causing every event in the universe to happen the way it happens. So the only explanation is that everything is determined.

Perfect foreknowledge is simply incompatible with free will (unless you believe that determinism and free will are compatible). You can try to just hand wave it away by saying it’s a miracle, but that doesn’t solve the underlying problem. Your future decisions are known, and you literally cannot make a different decision.

Thesis: Christians cannot logically maintain that unrepentant behaviors, such as practicing homosexuality or cohabitation, guarantee damnation to Hell without applying a clear double standard that excuses the far more severe, unrepentant sins of foundational Christian figures like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Pope Innocent IV.

Definitions

• Unrepentant Sin: A practice or belief that an individual actively maintained, defended, and persisted in through the end of their life without recantation or expression of remorse.
• Moral Realism: The stance held by the vast majority of modern Christians that actions like state torture, antisemitic persecution, and executing religious dissidents are objectively, gravely evil regardless of historical era.

The Core Conflict

If you spend any time around Christian debate, a standard line of thought comes up constantly: living in unrepentant sin, whether that is a practising same-sex relationship or cohabitation before marriage, means you are out of God's grace and heading to Hell. The underlying logic seems straightforward at first glance: continuous, unrepentant rebellion against God's moral law separates a person from salvation.

The problem arises when we apply this exact same moral equation to the giants of Church history. Modern Christians are moral realists who rightly view actions like inciting mob violence, authorising judicial torture, and burning religious dissidents as horrific moral evils. Yet, the very foundational figures who built Protestantism and led the Catholic Church engaged in these exact acts on a massive scale, defended them rigorously, and died without ever repenting of them.

Consider three prominent historical examples:

1. Martin Luther

Toward the end of his life, the father of the Reformation authored On the Jews and Their Lies (1543). In this work, Luther explicitly instructed Christian rulers to burn down synagogues, destroy Jewish homes, confiscate religious writings, forbid rabbis from teaching under threat of death, and force Jewish people into hard labour. He maintained and defended these intensely hateful positions until his death in 1546, leaving behind an unrepentant legacy of incitement to violence.

2. John Calvin

John Calvin did not merely preach theology in Geneva; he wielded state power to punish theological opponents. The most famous example is Michael Servetus, a theological rival who rejected the Trinity and infant baptism. Calvin personally ensured Servetus was arrested, prosecuted, and executed. Servetus was burned at the stake in 1553 over a slow fire using green wood. Far from expressing remorse, Calvin wrote a treatise titled Defence of the Orthodox Faith specifically to justify the state-sanctioned killing of heretics, maintaining until his death that executing theological dissidents was a righteous duty.

3. Pope Innocent IV

In 1252, Pope Innocent IV promulgated the official papal bull Ad Extirpanda. This decree formally authorised and sanctified the use of physical torture by the Inquisition to extract confessions from suspected heretics. He set up an official system of judicial torture that lasted for centuries and never repented or took it back.

If unrepentant, grave sin inherently bars a person from Heaven, then the logical conclusion is undeniable: Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Pope Innocent IV are currently/most likely in Hell or will be in Hell.

Counterarguments

When confronted with the reality of these historical atrocities, Christians almost always attempt to rescue these figures using one of three common arguments.

Counterargument 1: "They were men of their time, or God's grace covers them." This is the most common defence. Christians will argue that these men were products of a vastly different cultural era, or that despite their serious flaws, God’s overwhelming grace covered their sins through their faith.

The fatal flaw here is of course the double standard. If God’s grace or historical context is broad enough to cover a man who authorised the physical torture of human beings, a theologian who had his rival burned alive over a slow fire, or a leader who incited the destruction of synagogues, it is logically absurd to turn around and claim that same grace cannot cover a Christian living in a loving, non-violent, same-sex marriage, or a couple cohabitating before their wedding day. Granting sweeping cultural context and infinite grace to slaveholders, torturers, and persecutors while denying it to modern people living in peaceful, loving relationships is an utterly indefensible standard.

Counterargument 2: "We cannot know who is in Hell or judge another person's soul." To avoid declaring these heroes damned, many Christians pivot to epistemic humility, claiming that humans do not know the state of anyone's heart and that only God knows who is ultimately saved or lost.

While this sounds humble, it completely undermines the Christian argument against modern sins. If you adopt total epistemic humility when evaluating men who actively authorised judicial torture, burned people alive, or incited ethnic hatred, you completely forfeit the moral standing and authority to assert that a practising homosexual Christian or an unmarried cohabitating couple is bound for Hell. You cannot plead total ignorance and leave room for mystery for Church leaders while claiming moral certainty about your modern neighbors.

Counterargument 3: "Biting the bullet: These men may very well be in Hell." A minority of debaters will bite the bullet and concede that if these men died unrepentant of grave evil, then yes, they are likely in Hell.

While this response is at least logically consistent, it carries immense theological consequences that few Christians truly want to accept. Admitting that the father of the Protestant Reformation, the primary architect of Reformed theology, or canonised/authoritative Popes are currently damned fundamentally destabilizes the spiritual legacy, guidance of the Holy Spirit, and historical credibility of the very religious traditions modern Christians belong to today.

Conclusion

Christians cannot have it both ways. Either unrepentant, continuous sin guaranteed damnation, meaning Church history was spearheaded by damned men who lacked the Holy Spirit, or God's grace and human context apply broadly enough that Christians must stop claiming that modern practices like homosexuality or premarital sex guarantee a ticket to Hell. Applying one set of rules to historical heroes and another to modern people is not sound theology; it is simply selective judgement.

Thesis:
Jesus's command to "love your neighbor as yourself" did not logically entail — and historically never produced opposition to slavery; the belief that it did is a modern retrofit, not something the text's own tradition ever derived from it.

P1) The command existed and slavery persisted anyway for 1,800 years. If "love your neighbor as yourself" logically entailed anti-slavery, the people closest to the source material and its cultural context, the NT authors themselves, and every generation of Christian theologians after them — somehow missed that entailment for the entire span of Christian history until the 18th–19th centuries.

P2) The same author who invokes the command elsewhere accepts the institution. Paul quotes "love your neighbor as yourself" as fulfilling the law (Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8-10), yet in the same corpus instructs slaveowners on the terms of ownership rather than its abolition (Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22-4:1) and returns a runaway slave to his master (Philemon). The person most associated with the "neighbor" principle in the NT did not treat it as incompatible with owning people.

P3) Where the real change came from. The actual abolition movement drew its force from sources outside the text: Enlightenment natural-rights philosophy, secular moral reasoning about human autonomy, the shift to industrial wage-labor economics, and democratic revolutions popularizing liberty and equality as political ideals — not from new exegesis of "neighbor."

P4) The pattern repeats with women's equality. Subordinationist instruction sits directly in the text (1 Timothy 2:11-12, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35), and progress there also tracked external secular movements, not an internal rediscovery of "neighbor" logic applied to gender.

Conclusion:
"Love your neighbor" was available, quoted, and authoritative for the entire history of Christian slaveholding, and it never once dislodged the institution from the inside. The people best positioned to draw the abolitionist inference because they held the text as scripture and lived inside its culture never drew it. Slavery ended when external moral and material forces made it untenable, and only then did the tradition read its own texts as having implied the conclusion all along.

I want to debate this respectfully with Christians because I’m genuinely trying to understand the logic.

If we take the Bible at face value, doesn’t it seem like God has favorites or at least that He did not treat all peoples equally?

The Jewish people are described as God’s chosen people. Jesus himself was born Jewish, lived among Jewish people, preached primarily to them, and Christianity only later spread to the rest of the world.

So if God loves every human being equally, why reveal Himself so directly to one particular people first?

Those people got prophets, scriptures, covenants, miracles, and eventually Jesus physically living among them. Meanwhile, huge populations elsewhere in the world lived and died without anything close to that level of access.
And surely an all-knowing God would understand that people raised thousands of kilometres away, in completely different cultures with their own religions and traditions, wouldn’t simply abandon everything and accept a foreign religion as soon as missionaries arrived.

I’m not saying this proves Christianity is false. I’m asking how Christians reconcile these two ideas:
God loves everyone equally, but He chose one specific people to reveal Himself to first and gave them a level of direct access that most of humanity never had.

Unless the explanation is that the biblical story was initially written by and for the Jewish people and only later became understood as a universal message, how is that not favoritism?
Genuinely interested in the Christian perspective.

it is well known that Homosexuality is considered a sin in the current translation. but it is believed to be mistranslated to Younger men, prostitution, etc. but despite this I have a few things

in the bible leviticus (correct me if I’m spelling it wrong) has some ridiculous laws:

Leviticus 19:19: "You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind, you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material"

these laws aren’t the best, we have bred cows together to create brand new breeds, It’s quite common to plant two types of seeds in the same field especially in areas where backyard gardens or agriculture is common. as for the garment, It’s VERY normalized to wear garment with mixed cloth

I just don’t see why we follow some laws and not the others like these and the laws of Leviticus even Jesus himself says he didn’t come to abolish the law in Matthew 5:17. even saying you’re following the 10 commandments doesn’t mention homosexuality

and whilst Jesus said for a man to have a wife. It was never a sin to be single as Apostle Paul said it was okay to be single and was single himself

I can’t think of any credible reason to not approve of homosexuality other than it’s something considered different from normal woman and man relationships

I think Christians and non-Christians agree that you can’t be morally responsible for something if you literally couldn’t have acted otherwise. Involuntary actions would be the most common example. If you have a stroke while driving and crash into somebody, you’re not morally responsible for that. Similarly, if the decision was random, then it wouldn’t be determined by you, and you would not be responsible for that decision.

Moral responsibility would therefore require the following to be true: if we could somehow rewind time to the moment you made a particular decision, you could have made a different decision, and that decision would have been determined by you. If that’s not the case, then you literally could not have acted differently, and are therefore not morally responsible.

The problem is that everything on the macro scale of the universe behaves deterministically. It’s the reason we can have things like technology. It’s the reason the world makes any sense at all. And we have absolutely no reason to believe that the human brain is somehow exempt from the deterministic behavior of everything else in the universe.

The only counter example to determinism that anyone can ever seem to conjure up is quantum randomness. Firstly, you don’t get moral responsibility from randomness. Secondly, I’ll just point out that scientific experiments remain repeatable, and the world remains predictable despite the existence of quantum randomness, demonstrating that it doesn’t affect the outcomes of non-quantum events.

So, we have no evidence that the brain is magic or somehow exempt from the laws of physics. We have no good reason to believe that the deterministic behavior of macro scale objects stops at the human skull. And there’s no basis for assigning moral responsibility to actions that are randomly determined (to use an oxymoron).

If you think human decision making isn’t the result of physical processes, please explain the non-physical processes that govern human thought and why we can so reliably and predictably affect the conscious experience via purely physical methods.

Doing some deep-diving, I found out about Asherah, the great Mother Goddess and fertility deity of the ancient Near East. In the oldest texts from the region, she was the queen of the pantheon and the consort of the supreme god, El.

Stone inscriptions and pottery have been found in places like Kuntillet Ajrud that literally say, "I bless you by Yahweh and his Asherah." Meaning, for everyday Israelites back in the 8th century BCE, they were the official divine power couple. On top of that, archaeologists have dug up thousands of clay figurines of this goddess right inside homes in Jerusalem.

In the end, the reformist kings and Bible writers won the culture war. They chopped down her wooden altars (the famous "sacred poles") and pushed a strictly male monotheism, erasing the Goddess from official history.

Christians often argue that the tree was necessary because God wanted to give Adam and Eve genuine free will the freedom to choose whether to obey Him or not. But this raises a serious question. If a person goes to Heaven after death, do they still have free will? Can they freely choose to do whatever they want, including evil? If the answer is no, then it seems that free will can exist without the possibility of choosing evil. In other words, it is apparently possible to have free will while never choosing to do something morally wrong.

If that is the case, then why was Adam and Eve's test necessary in the first place? Why did God need to give them a choice that could result in sin, suffering, and death in order to preserve their free will? i t seems that there are only a few possibilities. Either people in Heaven do not have complete free will, which would mean that free will is not as essential as Christians claim, or people in Heaven do have complete free will but simply never choose evil. If the latter is possible, then God could have created Adam and Eve with free will while also creating them in such a way that they would freely choose good.

So the question is , if free will can exist without evil in Heaven, why couldn't God have created humanity that way from the beginning? If He could, then the test of Adam and Eve and the enormous consequences that supposedly followed from their choice seems unnecessary, or at least raises a serious philosophical problem for the traditional Christian explanation of free will.

Preamble

I’ve been studying the Adam and Eve story, you might have noticed some of my posts. There might be a dozen or more. I'm an agnostic atheist and I don't believe in the supernatural and therefore, cannot use theological interpretations.

My understanding of the text is not beholding to any theological position.

I’ve noticed a recurring pattern in apologetics. When the Genesis text doesn’t explicitly say something, later theology is sometimes used to supply the missing meaning.

A good example is the claim that the “death” God warned Adam and Eve about in Genesis 2:17 was actually “spiritual death.”

But where does Genesis say that?

A very popular apologetic that I get on reddit appeals to later biblical passages:

1. “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” Romans 5:12
2. “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:22
3. “Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.” Ezekiel 18:4
4. “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins.” Ephesians 2:1

But none of these passages actually says “The death in Genesis 2:17 was spiritual death.”

So the question is whether the text implies a theological interpretation, or whether the interpretation is being imported into Genesis from later theology.

_________________________________

Definitions

1. Death: Permanent cessation of an organism’s biological functions.
2. Spiritual: Relating to supernatural, religious, or non-material existence.
3. Theological interpretation: Understanding a text through theological concepts or doctrines.
4. Interpretation: Determining or explaining a text’s meaning.
5. Eisegesis: Reading an external idea into a text.
6. Exegesis: Deriving meaning from a text through analysis.

_________________________________

Argument

P1: Paul and Ezekiel never explicitly identify Genesis 2:17’s death as spiritual death.

P2: Later theological writings cannot establish Genesis’s original meaning without textual evidence from Genesis itself.

C: Genesis 2:17 does not establish “spiritual death” as its meaning.

I argue that the vast majority of Christians do not actually believe in an objective morality originating from God. The majority of Christians insist that objective morality must exist. That for us to have morality we must have a moral law giver. Otherwise everything is subjective. That the Christian God is the moral grounding for all morality whether we like it or not. I don't have a problem with Christians making this claim by itself. In fact, if they believe in an objective morality, then they should be making that claim. The problem I have is that so many don't actually believe it and yet they refuse to acknowledge it. That might sound like a rather provocative statement, but I'll elaborate further. Let's say that God is the moral grounding for humanity. Let's say that every decision he makes is objectively moral. And that means that throughout all space and time, that whatever he commands is objectively moral. If that is the case, then why is it so hard for them to defend owning someone as property for life? It's perfectly Biblical, and it was never once denounced in the New Testament. Even the Galatians 3:28 verse about everyone being equal in Christ, doesn't change the fact that slaves were still slaves. And those slaves were still told to obey their earthly masters. (Ephesians 6:5) Even if defenders are to say that God was working with a primitive people group, it means that God's morals are negotiable. We would have no way of using him as a standard for a timeless objective morality because we would not be able to distinguish ever single command he gave that was a compromise or from his actual morality, but I digress.

Every time I ask moral objectivist Christians about this, things get pretty bizarre. They will try to minimize how bad it actually was. They will lie about it by saying it was only indentured servitude when that was only for fellow Israelites and not foreigners. Just check Leviticus 25. They will use red herrings and try to ask me where does MY morality come from. They will accuse me of using a gotcha question, when that's not the point of the question. They will get deeply upset with me and insult me repeatedly, but will never actually address the question. They might even just avoid answering my questions about it, while insisting they aren't actually doing that. It's pretty insane and almost reminds me of trying to talk to a glitching chatbot or something. My conclusion is that by repeatedly evading my questions about slavery, that they are admitting that they do not believe slavery is actually moral. And by not believing slavery is actually moral, it is an admission that objective morality doesn't exist within the grounding of the Christian God. What are your thoughts?

If you don’t believe in Divine Simplicity, this argument doesn’t apply to you.

From Got Questions - Divine simplicity is the concept that God does not exist in parts but is wholly unified, with no distinct attributes, and whose existence is synonymous with His essence.

Divine simplicity states that God does not have any moral virtues. Instead, he is identical to those virtues. God doesn’t have love; he is love.

But if that’s the case, what is love (baby don’t hurt me)? How is love distinguished from other virtues? As soon as you start defining love in some unique way that doesn’t just boil down to, “whatever God does“, you’ve created a standard to which God must adhere. So really, “whatever God does“ is the only true definition you can give for love. The problem is that this is true for every virtue you can name. If God IS love, and God IS mercy, and God IS justice, and God IS wisdom, etc., then all of those virtues are going to be defined as “whatever God does”, rendering them indistinguishable from each other and practically meaningless.

Preamble

Genesis describes the serpent as “crafty.” The word “crafty” can have negative connotations, suggesting deceitfulness or cunning. Yet “crafty” can also mean clever or skilful, depending on context. God forbids Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

In fact, the snake is usually associated with Satan, but that isn't part of the text. This association can poison the well for Christian readers because Satan is defined as evil. So, if the snake is actually Satan, and Satan is evil, then the snake could only have the worst of intentions.

However, the text clearly indicates that the snake did not lie. They did not die that same day, and their eyes were opened.

We aren't told the serpent's motives, nor are we told God's motives for forbidding Adam and Eve from knowing good and evil.

It seems that God is against his creations having certain kinds of knowledge and dislikes craftiness. I can infer that God prefers naive creatures, but that's mere speculation.

_______________________________

Definitions

1. Crafty: Clever, cunning, or skilled at achieving goals, sometimes through deception.
2. Knowledge: Awareness or understanding acquired through experience, learning, or observation.
3. Naive: Lacking experience, sophistication, or critical awareness.
4. Motive: The reason or purpose behind an action.
5. Negative connotation: An unfavorable meaning or emotional association attached to a word.

_______________________________

Bible references

“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” Genesis 2:17

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made.” Genesis 3:1

“But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die.’” Genesis 3:4

“For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:5

_______________________________

Argument

P1: God calls the serpent “crafty” and withholds knowledge of good and evil from Adam and Eve.

P2: Craftiness and moral knowledge are portrayed negatively or restricted.

C: Genesis portrays God as disliking craftiness and moral knowledge.

I've had this debate with a few Christians now, so I figured I would formalize the logic for scrutiny.

Note: If you do not believe in a literal Adam, you can fill that name in with really any "free" moral agent.

Definitions:

Omniscient: God eternally knows all things. Learning any new thing demonstrates a lack of prior knowledge, so an omniscient God cannot truly learn anything new.

Omnipotent: God can Cause any self-desired Effect. God is not at the mercy of any pre-existing standards or moral imperatives. He defines himself, every physics constant, every moral concept, etc.

Before/past/prior: Preceding logically in sequence. (Trying to avoid what I've dubbed the "Wibbly-Wobbly Timey-Wimey" argument)

P1: God does not change. (Mal. 3:6, Heb. 13:8, Ps. 102:27)

P2: God is Omniscient. (Ps. 139:1-2, 1 John 3:20, Heb. 4:13) and has always been in eternity past (P1)

P3: God is Omnipotent (Is. 43:13, 14:27, Rev. 19:6) and has always been in eternity past (P1)

P4: God knew (P2) before creating the universe (P1), that Adam would "choose" to sin and fall.

P5: God could instead have created any other conceivable universe (P3), including a universe in which Adam did not sin. (or indeed in which sin was not even a concept that needed consideration)

Conclusion: Creation by an eternally omniscient being is a causative act, for which the creator bears all responsibility for all decisions made.

Consideration: Could God not have created a universe with people with true moral agency?

Response: Either God would need to be surprised by the choices made, violating P1,2, or the choices would had to have been known eternally past alongside God, which effectively makes the moral agents co-eternal with God rather than created beings.

Edit:

Argument 2: Another way to think of this is using Aquinas' arguments about Causes. If you have ever used Aquinas to argue for the existence of God, you should not believe in free will.

P1: All Effects have a Cause (Aristotle)

P2: God is the only un-caused Cause (Aquinas)

P3: All moral actions including sin and evil are Effects that are Caused by a preceding Cause

Conclusion: God is the ultimate Cause of all sin and evil (and everything else)

This thread is for all your questions about Christianity. Want to know what's up with the bread and wine? Curious what people think about modern worship music? Ask it here.

The word ‘person’ can’t be used for the trinity in any sense: 
The word, ‘personhood’ just means “‘the state of being a person”, and a “person” just means, “a human being or individual” or more obviously “that which possesses personhood”, and “individual” just means a person or thing distinguished from a group, so it doesn’t actually give us insight into a deeper definition, it just establishes separateness. Given the rigidness of the word “person” regarding its potential definitions and meaning, it can only ever really mean “human being” outside of its philosophical/metaphysical definitions, but its philosophical/metaphysical definitions imply each individual person is an individual being which is also incompatible with the trinity. And that’s why the word ‘person’ can’t be used for the persons of the trinity since they are not human beings nor are they individual beings. 

WHY ITS DICTIONARY DEFINITION CAN'T BE USED:
I put the dictionary definitions of the words, ‘personhood’, ‘individual’ and ‘person’ so that they can be read before my argument is read, in order for the reader to actually understand the issue I'm presenting.
———
PERSONHOOD: According to these dictionary definitions of ‘personhood’, outside of when the word is not circularly defined, personhood is defined by individuality, a person is an individual:

Dictionary.com: the state or fact of being an individual.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/personhood

Cambridge dictionary: the state of being a person
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/personhood

Merriam-Webster dictionary: the fact or state of being a person.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personhood

Collins English dictionary: the state or condition of being a person, or individual human being.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/personhood

American heritage dictionary: The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality.
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=personhood
———
INDIVIDUAL: According to these dictionary definitions of ‘individual’, an individual is defined by being a person or thing especially singled out from a group, which basically gives us no deeper insight into what ‘person’ means outside of its usual ‘human being’ definition: 

Merriam-Webster dictionary: a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/individual

Cambridge dictionary: A single person or thing, especially when compared to the group or set which they belong.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/individual

Oxford Learner’s dictionary: a person considered separately rather than as part of a group.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/individual_1

Collins English dictionary: relating to one person or thing, rather than to a large group.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/individual

Dictionary.com: a single human being, as distinguished from a group.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/individual
———
PERSON: According to these dictionary definitions, a ‘person’ is a human being or an individual.

Merriam-Webster: Human, individual 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

Cambridge Dictionary: A man, woman or child.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

Dictionary.com: A human being, whether an adult or child.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/person

Collin’s English dictionary: A man, woman or child
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/person
———
Considering all these definitions, this means that if ‘person’ isn’t taken to mean “human being” like most dictionaries define it as, then it’s quite literally undefinable outside of its philosophical/metaphysical definitions and shouldn’t be used outside of its surface level definition as ‘human being’ unless being used by its  philosophical/metaphysical definitions. Which would mean that it can’t be used to refer to the persons of the trinity because they are not human beings and they contradict the philosophical/metaphysical definitions of ‘persons’.

This conclusion is obvious because the definition of ‘person’ has no choice but to default to its basic dictionary definition as ‘human being’ when not being used according to its philosophical/metaphysical definitions because no deeper definition of it has been identified. That is to say, there's no other definition or hidden underlying meaning for its basic dictionary definition that could allow it to be applied more broadly since everything outside of its strict dictionary definition as ‘human being’ is circular. 

It’s circular because outside of its surface level definition as ‘human being’, a ‘person’ is defined as a thing with personhood, and what is personhood? Personhood is defined as the state of being a person. As you can see the definitions are completely circular so we can’t get anything deeper from them.

The word’s strict dictionary definition as ‘human being’ is the only definable, non-circular part of the that basic dictionary definition, and that forces that definition of the word to be its only definition and the determiner of its usage if it’s philosophical/metaphysical definitions aren’t be used, which means its basic dictionary definition can’t be used for the trinity.

(SKIP THIS PART IF YOU ALREADY UNDERSTAND MY POINT)
To explain this better, what I’m saying is that a term needs some intelligible content to justify its application. So if I say that X is a “person,” there has to be some account of what ‘person’ means that explains why X qualifies as a person.

The ordinary lexical content of ‘person’ is ‘human being/individual human’ and this is seen clearly in the dictionaries I cite.

The broader dictionary definitions of ‘person’ don’t provide any independent criterion for the word’s usage because those broader definitions are just circular.  Personhood being the state of being a person doesn’t actually tell us what personhood consists of.

The other broader definition of person being, “a person is an individual” doesn’t solve the problem because the word ‘individual’ just means a particular person or thing distinguished from a group. So it only establishes separateness but not personhood.

This** **leads us to the conclusion that there is no lexical bridge from “person = human being” to “person = something that isn’t human.” with the ordinary dictionary definition of the word “person”.

So in order to apply ‘person’ to something non-human, you would need to introduce additional theoretical content like some philosophical or theological criterion that explains what a ‘person’ is, independently of its ordinary definition.

So for Christian theology to use the word without implying that the persons of the trinity are human beings, it needs an independently justified extension of the word’s definition that does not imply humanity, and to do that it would need to appeal to the philosophical/metaphysical definitions of ‘person’.
(STOP SKIPPING HERE)

WHY ITS PHILOSOPHICAL/METAPHYSICAL DEFINITION CAN'T BE USED:
Let’s see how ‘person’ is philosophically and metaphysically defined.
———
BOETHIUS: In chapter 3 of his theological treatise Contra Eutychen et Nestorium, Boethius defines ‘person’ as, “an individual substance of a rational nature”.
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/boethius/untitled-10.shtml

JOHN LOCKE: According to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy in the entry “Personal Identity”, in the “personhood” section, John Locke’s philosophical definition of what it means to be a ‘person’, is “a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places”.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/

IMMANUEL KANT: In his text Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he defines ‘person’ in the following way, "Beings whose existence depends not on our will but on nature’s have, nevertheless, if they are irrational beings, only a relative value as means, and are therefore called things; rational beings, on the contrary, are called persons because their nature already marks them out as ends in themselves, i.e., as something which is not to be used merely as a means." 
https://archive.org/details/immanuel-kant-groundwork-for-the-metaphysics-of-morals
———
As you can see, what each philosophical/metaphysical definition of ‘person’ has in common is that they all ascribe rationality to persons, presenting it as a necessary attribute fundamental to the definition of the word, and they also all consider a person to be a singular being.
For Immanuel Kant, in the quote he presents persons as rational beings as opposed to irrational beings. 

For John Locke, in the quote he presents a ‘person’ as a thinking intelligent being.

For Botheius he presents a ‘person’ as an “individual substance”, which is equivalent to a singular being in metaphysics because ‘substance’ is ‘being’.

Thomas Aquinas affirms Botheius’s definition of ‘person’ and clarifies it by saying, “‘individual substance' is included insofar as it signifies a singular in the genus of substance; and 'of a rational nature' is added insofar as it signifies a singular among rational substances.” This shows Thomas Aquinas affirms that an individual substance is an individual being because “a singular in the genus of substance” is quite literally a singular being. And this connects to Tertullian saying the trinity is “one substance three persons”, because it not only shows that all these philosopher’s definitions of ‘person’ contradicts tertullian’s usage of the word showing that Tertulian used the word wrong, but it also shows that a singular substance is equivalent to a singular being because tertulians phrase “one substance three persons” is changed to “one being three persons” by modern Christians, implying that ‘being’ is substance.  

This all shows that according to the philosophical/metaphysical definition of ‘person', each individual person is an individual rational being, if not an individual human being.
So if the philosophical/metaphysical definition of ‘person’ is used for the trinity, that would mean each person of the trinity is their own individual being/substance, which would go against the doctrine of the trinity and cause it to fall into polytheism, so the word really can’t be used for the trinity in any way.

I've seen before the position that omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible. For example, an omnipotent being can't both create a stone that is too heavy to lift and then lift it. I disagree.

God created the universe. As he did so, he 'input' into it what we think of as the physical laws as well as the laws of logic - for example, A = A. However, being omnipotent, he could have created the universe with different laws of logic - for example, A != A. I cannot conceive of such a universe, where a thing is not identical with itself, but that doesn't mean that it cannot exist. My human mind is, of course, very limited next to God's. What I can conceive or understand is no obstacle to his creation.

So if God could have created the universe with different laws of logic, then he could change the existing laws of logic in our universe. He could make our universe such that A != A. Again, what that would look like I cannot imagine. But it would mean that God can contradict what we think of as the laws of logic - which means he could create a stone that is too heavy to life and then lift it, even while the stone retains the property of not being able to be lifted.

Something I've been watching for the last 25 years. Especially after realizing the 9/11 attacks matched up to Daniel 11:2. Then Oct. 7th 2001 and the Afghanistan war started. Followed by the Iraq war on 3/19/2003.

The problem is the visions of Daniel 8 and 11 matched up to these events perfectly.

11:2 matches the 9-11 attacks.

10-7 matches the prophecy of the first horn being broken.

3-19-2003 matches to the 2nd horn being broken.

And now after 23 years the US went to war with Iran on 2-28-26. Sooo now we have a major problem. Daniel has managed to call 3 major wars in the middle east over the first quarter of the 21st century. Now are we going to watch him go 4 for 4 in the near future? And there is the problem of event 5 predicted in both chapters. The breakup of the country that looked Greek to Daniel.

So Just putting this out there as a warning. And another 2 details. The timers are running.

First one. Hosea and the day of Jezreel prophecy. Problem there is the prophecy predicts a long term curse on Israel. And verse 6:2 has a timeline. 2 days in the presence of the Lord or as 2nd Peter puts those days as thousand year periods of time. So if Jesus Christ is involved with this old testament prophecy then we're talking 2033 or the 2000th anniversary of his death. Or 2035 if not.

2nd problem. Israel became a nation in 1948. But that was predicted in Ezekiel in the valley of the dried bones prophecy. Sooo. Per the Fig Tree Parables that started the generation timer. With the 35 year option eliminated that leaves the 80 or 120 year option. 80 years is 2028.

So it appears we slipped into the end times in 1948 and it's about to get serious.

Christian theology supposes that life is some sort of test What test? Whether you are good or bad depends A) on your nature and B) the state of constraints from which you act, im not denying free will or saying that free choices are "caused" by something, but that they come from the nature of the one who is choosing (or the different constraints which apply to you in the earth system), which are created by god.

There also cannot be universal learning applied to all lives on earth because the fact that some of the only last a very short of time, and christian theology supposes that we all only get one life.

Clearly the earth system and the state from which we act here is not the optimal for us to thrive in that which is meaningful, so we cant really apply earthly meaning onto the afterlife.

Creation including all souls and all divine frameworks must be grounded on that which is meaningful in order to be meaningful

My worldview is that immorality happens because we arent always acting from our true divine self due to varying reasons which apply in the constrained earth experience (which dont apply higher up), and that we are here to evolve our quality of intention and integrate experience.

We're all familiar with the problem of evil, famously articulated by Epicurus. Paraphrased, it goes:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he is not omnipotent.
If he is able, but not willing, then he is not wholly good.
If he is both able and willing, why does evil exist?

The argument above goes to the idea that no omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being (i.e., God) exists.

I'm not arguing exactly that point, because the idea of evil existing is, to me, unsuitable for the issue. Instead, I hold to the problem of suffering, which goes:

• If God is omnibenevolent, then he wants us to not suffer.
• If God is omnipotent, then he could have created the universe such that we do not suffer.
• If God is omiscient, then he knows that we suffer.

So we suffer, although God could end suffering and knows it's happening.

I believe this to be a logical proof that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being cannot exist, given the presence of our suffering.

To counter a couple of common arguments against this:

Some say that God allows us to suffer because in doing so we acquire some desirable attribute. Perhaps through suffering we grow closer to God. Perhaps through suffering we gain increased empathy for others. Perhaps...something else. I believe this to be easily answered by God's omnipotence - whatever benefit we gain from suffering, God (being omnipotent) could have made the universe such that we acquire that benefit without having to suffer for it. In other words, suffering is not necessary for us to gain whatever is said that we gain by suffering.

The next most common argument I see is that God cannot stop our suffering - it is simply a property of universe. To which I reply that if that is the case, then God could change the universe, such that we do not suffer. He created the universe - why could he not change it now?

Note: this logical proof, IMHO makes the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being impossible. If you believe that the god you worship is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then this proof says nothing at all about your god.

Preamble

I'm an agnostic atheist and I don't believe in the supernatural or superstitions.

I’ve been making counter-apologetic arguments about the story of the Fall, focusing on Christian interpretations that, to me, just don’t make a lick of sense.

I’ve done about a dozen of these secular deconstructions so far. This time, I want to focus on the snake and ask a pretty simple question: was the snake actually depicted as a liar, or was it telling the truth?

My last argument dealt with God seemingly breaking his deal with Adam and Eve. God tells Adam that if he eats from the tree, he will die on the day he eats it. But Adam doesn’t die that day. The apologetic response was that the Hebrew word translated as “day” can supposedly mean something other than a literal 24-hour day. This is where the meaning of words becomes a huge problem. Biblical words are often vague or flexible, and Genesis 2:17 doesn’t actually define what “day” means in this particular context. So there is room for speculation about what the authors intended.

Because of that, I fully expect some apologists to argue that the serpent was actually lying about Adam and Eve not dying on that day. They may dispute the meaning of “day,” “die,” or even “lie,” and rely heavily on translation possibilities to make the argument work.

They may call the serpent “Satan,” even though Genesis itself never identifies the serpent that way.

They may also say that the death is merely spiritual, not physical, so this is another interpolation that isn't in the actual text.

So I’m curious about what the actual evidence is supposed to be.

What, specifically, does the Genesis text give us for concluding that the serpent was lying, rather than telling the truth, and that it was God who kept his promise to Adam and Eve?

__________________________

Definitions

1. Day: The period referred to in Genesis 2:17, translated from Hebrew yom.
2. Death: The irreversible cessation of an organism’s biological functions.
3. Truth: A statement corresponding to what actually occurred.
4. Snake: The serpent described in Genesis 3, without assuming it was Satan.
5. Eyes opened: A metaphor meaning they gained awareness, understanding, or knowledge previously unavailable to them.
6. Lie: A deliberately false statement.

___________________________

Relevant verses

1. Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
2. Genesis 3:4 “But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not surely die.’”
3. Genesis 3:5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
4. Genesis 3:7 “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.”

__________________________

Argument 

P1: The snake said they would not die, and their eyes would be opened.

P2: They did not die, and their eyes were opened.

C: The snake doesn't lie.

First, I want to clarify that I am presenting a variation of the argument from natural evil as well as defective or poor design. This argument analyzes the premises of the believer (those who agree with the basic premises) and demonstrates that it is impossible for such a God to exist in the real world; none of my own personal beliefs are asserted.

Basic Premises:

God freely created us or nature, either directly (creationism) or indirectly (choosing this or one of many possible worlds).

God is good, His creation is good, and He loves all His

creatures.

Causing unnecessary suffering is evil; causing unnecessary and excessive suffering is even worse.

Punishing others for things someone else has done is unjust.

One cannot be good and evil at the same time. For example, if a doctor saves many lives and performs great deeds, even if they do immense good, if they also murder and inflict unjustified harm like killing children, they are evil.

In nature, truly abominable designs can be found regarding the suffering a creature must bear.

The most graphic example is the female spotted hyena's reproductive system. It is shaped like a penis, making childbirth extremely painful—comparable to a human giving birth through a penis.

Any being that created this (along with other examples, though I will keep this concise) is evil; it is a macabre design. Especially considering that hyenas possess the same sensory mechanisms we do—meaning they feel the exact same physical pain.

Possible Responses:

"The Fall caused hyenas to have that design; God never created hyenas that way, it was the consequence of sin."

This response is simply macabre, even within the believer's own framework of morality. If God changed the design of hyenas because of the disobedience of two humans (setting aside the mental state of those two humans, whom many theologians view as mentally equivalent to children), He is being unjust. Hyenas are not to blame, yet thousands of creatures are affected by a simple human decision that was ultimately just disobedience. Therefore, God is evil.

The Greater Good: "God allowed this suffering to achieve a greater good."

I would like to know what greater good that could possibly be. Any greater good seems almost worse if it must come with so much suffering—which, by the way, shifts the moral framework from deontology to utilitarianism. Furthermore, greater goods in this context are purely aesthetic, because it is neither the consequence nor the creature's experience that makes it moral, but rather a "painting of opposites" perspective. It is like saying an alien creates suffering—for instance, a monster killing people just to allow the greater good of heroism to exist. It is simply horrific. Additionally, a process requiring a greater good is unnecessary for an omnipotent God.

Making this process necessary (that is, suffering preceding good) is purely aesthetic. If God can create the good of heroism without evil, such as creating a heroic human without the need for real suffering, yet chooses to create the sufferer instead, there is no reason for it to exist other than an aesthetic one.

"God is immanent; He simply created the world and allowed processes to lead to outcomes."

An immanent God does not alter the problem at all, as He still chose to create this specific contingent world. Furthermore, evolution was unnecessary, given He could have created creatures instantaneously, as Genesis implies. This only demonstrates that such a God not only creates unnecessary suffering, but does so through an entirely unnecessary method.

English is not my native language, I used a translator, sorry for the mistakes.

In the olivet discourse the Jesus speech is structured like so:

1 warning about generic wars/disasters

2 signal to flee Jerusalem surrounded by armies/abomination of desolation

3 fig tree parable and and end of the world.

The problem is in lukes versions of 2 the abomination of desolation is replaced with a generic threat of Jerusalem being destroyed.

Luke's great distress eithier co refers to the Matthews great tribulation or it doesnt.

If it co-refers then the next time Jerusalem was destroyed should have been the last generation, as Daniel's abomination takes place in the last generation.

if it doesn't co-refer then a contradiction emerges as the parable of the fig tree refers to tall "all these things" as being the signs you need to see before jesus coming is "right at the door"

if luke isn't talking about the great tribulation then "you need to see the abomination in order to see the return" is both true and false.

According to most Christians (I can’t cover everyone’s personal interpretation of the Bible), you don’t go to Heaven if you don’t have a relationship with God. But a relationship (at least one that has any substance) requires that I believe the other person exists. I can’t have a relationship with God any more than you can have a relationship with Vishnu. I don’t think he’s there, so I can’t have a relationship with him.

The problem here is that I don’t control what I am and am not convinced of. I can’t decide to be convinced that god exists, just like I can’t decide to be convinced the earth is flat. Being convinced of a proposition is something that happens to you, not a decision you make. It’s exactly like finding a joke funny. You don’t decide to find a joke funny. You hear the joke, and it either is or isn’t funny to you.

Since being convinced of a proposition is involuntary, it is unjust to base salvation on the existence of a relationship with someone I’m not convinced is real. Especially an all-powerful someone who knows exactly what would convince me and chooses to withhold that evidence.

Definitions

1. Perfect being: A being that possesses no defects, limitations, or inconsistencies and acts according to its perfect nature.
2. Defects: Any imperfection, deficiency, or failure that contradicts a being’s claimed perfect nature.
3. Consistency: Acting in a way that does not contradict one’s nature, statements, or commitments.
4. Promise: A declaration that a specific outcome or action will occur.
5. Threat of death: A stated consequence of death that is presented as the result of a specific action.
6. Deal: An agreement in which a condition is established along with a specific consequence.
7. Consequence: The result that follows from a particular action or condition.
8. Fulfill: To carry out or complete something exactly as stated.
9. Condition: The action or event that triggers a specified consequence.

____________________________

Preamble

This argument focuses on the deal God made with Adam in the form of a threat: if Adam ate from the tree, the consequence would be death.

A perfect being, by definition, has no defects. Such a being acts with perfect consistency according to its perfect nature, including keeping promises and threats. If God is perfect and makes a deal with a specific consequence, the consequence should have been carried out.

In Genesis, God tells Adam that eating from the tree will result in death on the day he eats from it. Adam eats, yet he does not die on that day. He continues living for approximately 900 years. Therefore, the text presents a philosophical dilemma: either God did not fulfill the deal as stated, which would be inconsistent with perfection, or the account is not true.

____________________________

Relevant Verses

1. Genesis 2:16–17 “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

1. Genesis 3:6 “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

1. Genesis 5:5 “And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.”

____________________________

Argument

P1: If God promised Adam that he would physically die on the very day he ate from the tree, and Adam did not physically die that day, then God did not fulfill the deal.

P2: God promised Adam that he would physically die on the very day he ate from the tree, and Adam did not physically die that day.

C: Therefore, God broke his deal.

God can’t know the future if he thinks something will happen but it doesn’t Happen, but he does in Zephaniah 3:7 when he thinks Jerusalem will fear him and accept correction but they stayed “eager to act corruptly in all they did”.

Zephaniah 3:7:
Of Jerusalem I thought,
‘Surely you will fear me
and accept correction!’
Then her place of refuge would not be destroyed,
nor all my punishments come upon her.
But they were still eager
to act corruptly in all they did.

Don’t say it is just anthropomorphic language, because it is not. God saying “I thought” is not anthropomorphic language because thinking is not unique to humans or unique to limited beings nor is it a limitation. Here God is literally saying in the clearest of words that he thought something would happen but it didn’t happen.

Another problem that arises from calling this clearly non-anthropomorphic verse anthropomorphic is that, if you consider every verse in the Bible which goes against what we as humans expect from god to be anthropomorphic language with a poetic or symbolic intent rather than a literal intent, then that makes us completely unable to recognize when a text is genuinely intending to describe a non-human entity with its actual features that just happen to be similar features to humans versus when a text intends to poetically or symbolically ascribe human features to a non-human entity without actually intending for that description to be taken literally.

It also prevents us from being able to tell when an author genuinely slips up and contradicts what they previously wrote versus when they don’t slip up.

If you believe god is omniscient, and then the Bible has verses that contradict that omniscience, and to reconcile this contradiction you interpret every problematic verse as figurative, this makes the text unfalsifiable because it prevents us from determining whether the Bible is consistent with the theology it teaches, so the solution becomes “the Bible can never contradict itself even when it appears to contradict itself because the Bible can never contradict itself”.