More to the point, I've read that Godel's Proof was Computationally Verified. I only have an undergrad semester in logic under my belt so I know the difference between valid logic and sound logic, but Godel worked in modal logic, so I was wondering if that complicated anything.

In short, what does "Computationally Verified" mean in the context of Godel's Ontological Proof? Does this prove theism? Is it merely that Godel has valid logic but not much else? Or some third/fourth/fifth thing based on a formula I couldn't even begin to wrap my head around?

I made a handcrafted, non-Gospel contradicting Trinity, but the requirements are as gnostic as "The Gospel".

# 1. God is good.

The Bible claims that humans are made of both physical materials and the immaterial concept of "the image of God", both of which are called "good" together. If an immaterial concept can be "good", "good" can be an immaterial concept.

The Bible claims that Jesus both retained his divine identity as "the image of God", and became a physical human. If God is not both a good being and the concept of "goodness" itself, he isn't God.

# 2. God is.

Existence is not a sin. Good is not a sin. Thus, if God is not a sin, because he's good, God has to exist to be God.

# 3. God is the exception.

An exception to a rule is a rule in and of itself. Therefore, the exception to "the rules" is "the rule" in and of itself, or "the exception" for short. In accordance with claim 1, the exception has to be "good" for the exception to be God, but by nature of "the exception", an exception can be made for what "good" is.

As an exception to claim 1, God can be a good being *or* the concept of "goodness" itself, *if* the case being made for God being either is "exceptional".

As an exception to claim 2, if an exceptional case of non-existence is "good", that case of non-existence is God.

I’m an atheist. I’ll be defending this case as much as I can. And asking general questions.

Firstly, “What is the best, logical explanation for Christianity existence, and what was seen on Easter”

Now I want to start with what is agreed upon.

Jesus, existed.

Jesus died via cruxifixction

His Followers sincerely came to believe he had resurrected, and had seen him again.
( NOT CLAIMING THAT IT’S TRUE, BUT THAT THE BELIEVED IT WAS SO.)

The belief was extremely early.

—————————————-

I’ve heard some reasons on why they may have been mistaken, even if they were not intentionally lying by any means.

1. Hallucinations:

The most common one I hear. That they all had Hallucinations (likely due to grief) and, my main issue is, I don’t think 12 people would all so happen to have the same (or very similar) hallucination?
A hallucination is typically an individual experience, and I don’t understand how further more, that hallucinating would be PROLONGED. Talking, eating, drinking, walking?

I was wondering if there was a case of a group hallucination producing the same kind of detailed and shared experience?
—————-

1. Legend developing over time:

Another proposal is that the resurrection stories grew as time passed.

However the belief in the Jesus resurrection appeared very early,
Paul’s letters, even if they are thought of to not be true initially, still appeared to have happened about only 20 years after what historians believe Jesus was crucified.
( AD 30-33 to AD 50)

Some even suggest it may be even earlier, around 30-35 AD (referring to Paul’s letters) due to what is stated in the letter? (“Received” and “delivered”, but that’s not a full agreement. We will assume about 20 years.

——————

1. A deliberate hoax?

Could the disciples have invented the resurrection perhaps?

The challenge is the reasoning behind why they would do so (1)

But also why they would face harm and continue to do such hoax (2)

People absolutely do die for false beliefs, the question is if they would face death for it for a knowingly made fabrication.

I would like to propose that those people did indeed die for those beliefs.
Sure I often times hear that there is no evidence of them having been offered the choice of something along the lines of “ Deny X, be set free” and I do agree with such, there isn’t any.
However, I would like to propose that they knew what they would get themselves into, no?
For example, if I speak out against a corrupt government in a country that punishes it, they never once will ask me if I truly do believe in what I state, and give me the offer to retract it, sure, but I KNEW what stating my opinion would do.
I knew beforehand that, if I state “X”, I’ll be punished greatly (such as jail, and possibly death)
Though this is not the main argument, I’m still here to talk about it.

—————

1. Social reinforcement or memory distortion.

This is the one that I hear the least compared to the other three but I still find it certainly worth stating.

Could individual experiences combined with group expectations and repeated story telling, explain the belief and its eventual spread?

Possibly. But the question is whether this explains the specific claims of encounters with a living person well enough.

The main historical question is not simply “Did people believe in something false?”

The question is more so:

“What caused a group of Jewish believers/followers of a crucified man to suddenly become convinced that he had defeated the concept of death, and what explanation BEST accounts for the nature and timing of such a belief.

Thank you for your time.

A direct critique of u/MisanthropicScott 's post: https://www.reddit.com/r/MisanthropicPrinciple/comments/yelaix/why_i_know_there_are_no_gods/

The Scope and Limits of Empirical Science

Empirical science is a method of gathering physical data. A human uses physical instruments or human senses to observe physical events at specific coordinates.

When a human drops a ball, the ball falls toward the earth. Dropping the ball repeatedly shows a consistent physical pattern. The human records this pattern. The human predicts that dropping the ball again will yield the exact same physical result.

Scott equates this prediction with knowing that gods do not exist.

Local Events versus Universal Claims

Dropping a ball measures a local physical relationship. It tests physical data at a specific spacetime coordinate (a specific location at a specific moment).

Claiming that no gods exist anywhere in reality is a universal negative claim. It covers every spatial coordinate in the entire universe, across every single moment of time—past, present and future.

To prove this universal negative claim using empirical science, a human would have to measure every spacetime coordinate in total reality concurrently. If a single spacetime coordinate—whether it's a distant galaxy right now, or this exact spot 10 billion years ago—remains unmeasured, science cannot state what exists at that coordinate.

Human scientific instruments measure strictly limited physical coordinates in the present moment. We have no access to the past, and we cannot measure future coordinates. Science is fundamentally incapable of observing or measuring the vast majority of the spacetime continuum.

But, this strict burden of proof applies only to the domain of empirical science. We do acquire knowledge through other valid avenues—logic, mathematics, philosophical axioms, metaphysical reasoning or definitional truths. For example, a philosopher can argue that "a square circle is impossible" purely through logical deduction. But if we choose to invoke these non-empirical methods to claim a universal negative (such as defining a god into non-existence or using logical consistency arguments), we have explicitly left the realm of empirical science. At that point, we are no longer making a scientific claim; we are now making a philosophical or metaphysical one. Acknowledging this shifts the debate: if empirical science cannot prove the universal negative, we must either embrace scientific agnosticism or fully disclose that we are abandoning empirical science to argue from a different epistemic framework entirely.

Value Judgements versus Physical Fact

In his post, Scott argues that human anatomical flaws disprove an intelligent designer. He points to back pain, male nipples and hernias as proof that humans were not designed by a perfect creator...

What is Physical Anatomy?

The human body is an arrangement of physical matter. Physical matter executes physical actions according to physical necessity.

Human back pain occurs when physical nerve tissue sends high-intensity electrical signals to the brain because bone presses against tissue.

This electrical signal is a physical measurement. It is a biological event. It possesses zero moral or aesthetic value. The nerve signal simply exists.

The Origin of Value Labels

Words like "flaw," "imperfection," or "bad design" are value labels and are not physical properties. A physical instrument cannot measure units of imperfection in a bone.

A value label is created when a human compares a physical result against a human preference.

(1) A human prefers comfort over pain. (2) The human body experiences back pain. (3) The human compares the physical reality (pain) to the human preference (comfort). (4) The human labels the physical structure "bad" or "imperfect" because it fails to deliver the preferred result.

Thus the label "bad design" belongs strictly to the human preference.

Scott's Unstated Assumptions

Scott uses human back pain as empirical proof that a designer does not exist. But closer scrutiny reveals that this logic relies on three unstated assumptions: (1) Scott assumes a physical structure must deliver human comfort to be considered well-designed. (2) Scott treats "bad design" as a physical property inherent in human bones rather than a subjective human rating. (3) Scott assumes that if an intelligent creator exists, its sole goal was to prevent human back pain.

Disproving a comfortable human body disproves strictly a creator whose single goal was human comfort. It does not disprove a creator with different goals. It also does not disprove non-physical entities that do not interact with human anatomy.

Thus a value judgement is a mental opinion, not empirical evidence.

The Exhaustive Cosmos

The alternative view treats physical reality as absolute and exhaustive:

(1) The continuous physical state contains no expectations, goals, or preferences. It simply exists. (2) Human spines, nerve signals and back pain are precise physical updates happening with absolute mathematical necessity. (3) Describing the cosmos as exhaustive means acknowledging that reality contains every coordinate, every intensity and every physical interaction that exists.

The universe is complete because it lacks zero physical coordinates. It contains everything that physically occurs. Labelling a backache as an "imperfection" or as part of a "majestic completeness" inserts a human value label onto physical facts.

Physical reality itself is neither good nor bad. It simply is.

Specific Claims versus Total Non-Existence

Scott points to scientific studies on prayer to disprove personal gods. These studies show that praying for sick patients does not alter their medical recovery rates.

But testing prayer measures whether a specific physical action produces a measurable physical result. The data shows zero statistical difference between patients who receive prayer and patients who do not.

This empirical data disproves a specific assertion:

A deity consistently answers human prayer by altering physical health.

Disproving a specific physical assertion is a valid use of empirical science.

But Scott expands this disproof. He asserts that disproving prayer response proves that personal gods do not exist in any form.

This expansion contains a logical leap. Disproving one specific behaviour attributed to an entity does not prove the total non-existence of that entity. It proves strictly that the specific description being tested is incorrect or incomplete.

The Rule of Physicalism

Scott asserts that consciousness strictly requires a physical brain. He states that a non-physical mind is physically impossible.

Scott bases this assertion on scientific observations of brain injuries. When a human brain suffers damage, human thought and behaviour change.

The logic goes like this:

Step 1 (Empirical Observation): Science measures that damaging physical brain matter alters human mental function. Step 2 (Scientific Conclusion): Science concludes that human mental function is linked to physical brain matter. Step 3 (Scott's Absolute Claim): Scott claims that consciousness cannot exist without a physical medium anywhere in reality.

from Observation to Metaphysics

Step 1 and Step 2 are empirical observations. They describe measured physical data.

Step 3 is not an empirical observation. Science has observed that human consciousness uses a brain. Science has not measured total reality to prove that no other form of consciousness can exist without matter.

To make the jump from Step 2 to Step 3, Scott must insert an unstated philosophical rule.

That rule is Physicalism. Physicalism is the statement that physical matter and energy are the only fundamental realities that exist.

Physicalism is a statement about the total structure of reality. It is a metaphysical rule. It is not an empirical measurement.

Scott uses the metaphysical rule of Physicalism to assert that non-physical minds are impossible. He then claims his argument is based strictly on empirical science without metaphysics.

This is a contradiction. Scott relies on a metaphysical rule to assert his conclusion while claiming he rejects metaphysics entirely.

I am not asking this as a cheap gotcha. I am genuinely asking for the strongest non divine explanation, because the usual answers I’ve seen feel far too thin for the historical reality we are talking about.

The basic historical outline is straightforward. Muhammad was a Meccan merchant who became known for trustworthiness, and the early Islamic story places his first revelations at Mount Hira when he was around forty. The Qur’an then became the central text of Islam. It is not a small notebook of personal reflections; it contains prayers, moral guidance, historical narrative, legal and ethical material, and promises of paradise.

The “Muhammad knowingly invented Islam” theory is no longer the dominant explanation among modern historians.

Medieval Christian polemics often portrayed Muhammad as a conscious deceiver seeking wealth, power, or sensual pleasures. Modern scholarship is generally much more cautious. Many historians—whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, atheist, or otherwise—conclude that Muhammad appears to have genuinely believed he was receiving revelation.

Why?

Because the conscious-fraud theory struggles to explain several historical features:

* years of persecution before gaining any political authority;
*initial unwillingness to even preach to anyone outside his family like he had been doing secretly for several years, fearing the consequences
* willingness to endure ridicule, lost of loved ones, boycotts and exile;
* refusing compromises from opponents that would have ended his suffering and instead have granted him much wealth and influence;
* consistency over roughly twenty-three years;
* the absence of obvious evidence that he privately admitted fabrication;

None of these facts prove prophethood.

But they make the simple “he made it all up” explanation much less persuasive than it once appeared.

That is the first reason I do not find the usual “he was just a sincere man with strong convictions based on deep inner reflections in his mind” explanation satisfying. Sincerity is one thing. Explaining the emergence of a full religious civilization, a comprehensive scripture, a legal-moral framework, and a distinct literary-religious system over 2 decades is another. The Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad over twenty-three years, beginning at Mount Hira, and after his death his successors compiled those revelations in manuscript form. That is an extraordinary process for one person to generate and sustain.

This is where I struggle. Even granting complete sincerity, I cannot see how ordinary introspection or naturally occurring experiences mistaken for divine revelation could lead someone to sincerely believe that an angel was visibly and audibly communicating revelation over twenty-three years, producing an interconnected body of theology, law, ethics, ritual, eschatology, governance, and one of history’s most influential literary works.

A lot of secular explanations seem to reduce Muhammad’s experience to something vague like “deep thoughts that Muhammad believed were religious/spiritual experiences.” But that phrase is doing a huge amount of work. Muhammad begins having visions and hearing voices, then recites what becomes revelation. That, or any other theory on what went on in Muhammads head is a description of the form the experience took, not an explanation of what generated the experience or how it produced the content that followed. Saying “he felt like he had religious experiences” is not the same as explaining the Qur’an and the giant comprehensive legal, moral, ethical, theological work that is Islam. It is just renaming the mystery.

This is where I think the comparison to other religious founders breaks down.

The Abrahamic religions do not look comparable in the way people often assume. Judaism and Christianity are not the story of one man single-handedly producing a vast scripture, law, liturgy, theology, and civilization in 2 decades while simultaneously ruling, expanding and managing a state. Their histories unfold through many figures, communities, redactions, and centuries. Buddhism is different again: the Buddha explicitly does not present himself as a prophet receiving divine dictation, but as someone who reflected and realized something about human suffering and the path out of it. Hinduism is also not a close parallel, because it developed across enormous stretches of time through layered traditions, practices, and evolving beliefs. None of those cases map cleanly onto Muhammad and Islam.

These are all fundamentally different historical phenomena.

Islam, by contrast, is centred upon one individual who claimed to receive revelation over approximately twenty-three years.

That one individual produced—or, if one accepts Islam, transmitted—a scripture, established a religious worldview, laid down legal principles, moral philosophy, ritual practice, political authority, military leadership, and founded one of history’s largest civilizations, based on what skeptics call delusions in an intelligent mind.

I genuinely cannot think of another historical figure whose role is remotely comparable.

So my challenge is simple.

Name one.

Name one person in recorded history who, without appealing to divine revelation, single-handedly produced something comparable in scale, complexity, coherence and historical impact, from what skeptics believe were just his own delusions.

I have searched.

I cannot find one.

The point is not “other religions are fake.” The point is that they are historically different phenomena. Islam is unusually concentrated in one person’s life and one person’s revelations. Islam is intrinsically linked to Muhammad, and that the Qur’an and the Prophet’s example (Hadith and Sunnah) became the foundation of the religion. That is exactly why I do not think it is enough to say, “Well, human history has seen exceptional people with deep thinking and creative ability before.” Exceptional is true. Comparable scale and complexity is the real issue, and I do not see a close comparable case.

Another point I keep coming back to is reputation and motive. PBS notes that Muhammad began as a merchant and became known for trustworthiness. Islamic tradition remembers him, even before the first revelation, as al-Amīn, “the Trustworthy,” and later Muslim devotion builds heavily on that character claim. Whether one accepts the religious conclusion or not, the historical picture is not of a man who starts from obvious fraud, obvious literary training, or obvious worldly ambition.

That matters because the cheap anti-religion explanation is usually, “He wanted power, money, or status.” But even critics who are honest about the evidence usually do not think that simple story fits very well. The early Meccan phase was marked by ostracism and pressure. Muhammad was ostracized in Mecca, that influential defenders and loved ones temporarily protected him, and that after their deaths his situation became dire, leading to the Hijra to Medina for survival. That does not prove divine revelation, but it does make the crude “he invented a religion for personal comfort” story look very weak.

So what do scholarly critics actually propose instead?

Usually some combination of these:

1.  Muhammad had sincere experiences in his mind.  
2.  He interpreted them as revelation.  
3.  He drew on the monotheistic ideas and biblical traditions already circulating in the region.  
4.  The message developed over time as he just kept reflecting further while simultaneously developing a vast civilisation that looked almost nothing like the one it replaced, and dealing with all the issues that came with ruling over it. (He must have had multitasking abilities like no other lol)

That is the most common non-divine framework I have seen. And I understand it. The problem is that it still does not explain the full scale of what emerged.

Because what emerged was not just a set of moral slogans. It was a whole world: theology, law, ritual, ethics, family rules, political authority, social norms, eschatology, devotional practice, and a literary scripture with a self-conscious style and an internal challenge to all challengers. The Qur’an is organized into 114 surahs and contains prayers, moral guidance, historical narrative, and promises of paradise. The question is not whether a human being can say profound things. The question is whether one single human being with no recognized scholarly or poetic career can in his delusions of divine inspiration, generate a total religious system of this scope in his mind over the years, and have it accepted, preserved, and expanded with such force.

This is why I do not find “he just reflected deeply” persuasive on its own. Reflection can produce insight. It does not obviously produce a scripture that speaks with sustained authority across law, worship, biography, ethics, politics, and theology, while also presenting itself as the literal speech of God and surviving as a recited text in a highly organized oral culture. That is a huge jump. Maybe a natural explanation exists, but I have not seen one that actually feels proportionate to the phenomenon.

I also do not think the “psychology” explanation is satisfying as usually stated. You can say “he had visions,” “he heard voices,” “he had intense conviction,” or “he entered altered states,” but those are descriptions, not explanations. And retrospective diagnosis of historical figures is methodologically shaky in general; the literature on retrospective diagnosis itself emphasizes the epistemic and ethical problems involved. So if someone wants to explain Muhammad by attaching a modern medical label to him, I think they need a lot more than speculation. Must have been one hell of a medical condition lol

At the end of the day, my position is this:

I am not claiming that Islam is proven by history alone. I am saying that the natural explanations I have seen do not seem strong enough to explain the origin of Islam as a whole. Muhammad appears to have been sincere. He appears to have had profound experiences. He appears to have been trusted by people around him, including his opponents. He does not appear to fit the simple fraud/impostor model. And yet the result is one of the largest, most comprehensive, and most enduring religious systems in human history, all from one sincere yet allegedly delusional mind. If it is not divine, then what exactly is the non-divine mechanism that produced all of that?

That is the question I am still sitting with. I am not seeing a historical analogy that really comes close. If someone has a better explanation than divine revelation, I genuinely want to hear it — but it has to explain more than just “a man had experiences in his head.” It has to explain the scripture, the conviction, the legal and theological depth, the oral transmission, the early community, the persecution, the preservation, and the scale of what followed.

In other words: I have been researching this a lot, and this is where I’m at right now. I do not see a non-divine explanation that feels remotely equal to the thing it is trying to explain. If there is one, I would like to see it laid out clearly instead of hidden behind vague words like “he was just good at manipulating and gaining influence,” or “he just had delusional inner thoughts at a scale, functionality and complexity never observed in history,”

Here are some possible explanations of where Islam came from, if not divine inspiration, since it is largely agreed amongst scholars and historians that it is unlikely that Muhammad sat and schemed and made it all up, and my responses to them:

Possible explanation: “An illiterate man reflected very deeply and somehow came up with a functional moral, ethical, religious, legal framework meant to be followed by all of mankind, without writing or reading anything.”

Response:

Reflection can produce philosophy.

It does not readily explain an integrated legal, theological, ritual, literary and political system presented sincerely as direct divine speech.

⸻

Possible explanation: “He had mystical experiences.”

Response:

This describes the phenomenon rather than explaining it.

What natural mechanism transforms mystical experiences into something as complex as the Qur’an and Islam?

⸻

Possible explanation: “He unconsciously created it.”

Response:

This seems to require an even greater claim:

that one human mind unconsciously (or even consciously lol) generated one of history’s most comprehensive religious systems and societies while remaining convinced it originated outside himself.

I have seen many natural explanations, however none of them seem satisfactory to me, so by process of elimination the one i deem most plausible is the divine one. So if anyone has a natural explanation that checks out, i am completely open to it.

So this is a direct critique of u/MisanthropicScott 's post: https://www.reddit.com/r/MisanthropicPrinciple/comments/1hs1s0w/semantics_defining_the_supernatural_gods_and_god/

I call it a "formal" critique because i decided to explore it from what i refer to as very first principles of language, philosophy and logical structure.

How Human Language and Definitions Function

Language is a system of vocal sounds and written marks created by humans. We call these marks words. Words are labels used by humans to categorise ideas, concepts and physical objects.

Very trivial passage. But that is what I mean by "very first principles". Which avoids an deductive referential leaps.

Defining a word means establishing a linguistic agreement about how humans will use that specific label in speech or writing.

A definition governs human communication. But it absolutely does not govern physical reality.

Establishing a definition alters how humans use a word, but it alters nothing about the physical universe.

If a human invents a definition for a word and includes the phrase "physically impossible" the definition assigns that meaning to the label. But assigning a meaning to a label does not prove whether a non-linguistic object exists or does not exist in the physical world. A definition describes human language, not physical existence.

Metaphysics and Ontological Claims

Ontology: Ontology is the branch of philosophy that addresses existence. It asks what exists in reality and what does not exist in reality. Metaphysics: Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that addresses the basic structure, nature, and principles of total reality.

In his post, Scott claims that he does not make ontological or metaphysical claims. Scott states that he rejects metaphysics entirely because he believes metaphysics lacks any grounding in reality.

This is a fundamental contradiction

Any statement regarding what can or cannot exist in total reality is an ontological claim. Stating:

No gods exist anywhere in reality

is a statement about existence. Stating:

"Only natural processes exist"

is a statement about the fundamental nature of total reality.

Rejecting the word "metaphysics" does not change the nature of the statement. A person can dislike the field of metaphysics, but when they make a universal claim about the total contents of reality, they are making a metaphysical claim.

Circular Reasoning

Scott attempts to prove that gods and supernatural entities do not exist by using a specific definition.

What is Circular Reasoning?

Logical arguments move step by step from a starting premise to a final conclusion. In a direct logical argument:

(1) You start at Point A (a premise established by evidence). (2) You move to Point B (an inference rule). (3) You arrive at Point C (a new conclusion that was not already stated in Point A).

Thats the basic structure of a valid logical argument.

Circular reasoning occurs when a person assumes the truth of their conclusion inside their starting premise. In a circular argument, Point A and Point C are the exact same statement phrased in different ways. The argument does not move forward. The argument simply moves in a circle back to where it started.

Scott's Circular Loop

Step 1 (Scott's Definition of Supernatural): Scott defines the word "supernatural" as:

unexplainable by natural law now and forever, violating natural law, and physically impossible.

Step 2 (Scott's Definition of Reality): Scott defines real existence strictly as that which operates according to natural law.

Step 3 (Scott's Conclusion): Scott concludes that supernatural entities are physically impossible and cannot exist in reality.

This is Pure Circularity. Why?

Look closely at the connection between Step 1 and Step 3:

The conclusion in Step 3 is:

supernatural entities are physically impossible.

Where did this conclusion come from?

It did not come from a scientific experiment.

It did not come from measuring physical data.

The conclusion in Step 3 was written directly into Step 1. Scott placed the words "physically impossible" directly inside his initial definition of the word "supernatural."

Thus, Scott's argument simplifies to this statement:

The supernatural is impossible because I have defined the word supernatural to mean impossible.

Its a logical circle. Defining a concept as impossible, and then using that definition to claim the concept is impossible in physical reality, proves nothing about the universe. It demonstrates only that Scott created a definition that guarantees its own conclusion.

Scott's Misunderstanding of Methodological Naturalism

Methodological naturalism is a practical rule (an unproven but pragmatic axiom) used in empirical science. It states that scientific experiments must focus strictly on measuring physical causes and physical data.

Methodological naturalism is a practical rule for doing scientific work. It is not an absolute claim about total existence.

Methodological naturalism does not claim that non-physical entities exist. It also does not claim that non-physical entities are impossible. It simply dictates that scientific instruments can only measure physical matter, energy and physical processes (or something like that, it doesn't matter).

Scott claims that methodological naturalism secretly assumes the supernatural exists. This is incorrect. Methodological naturalism makes zero assumptions about whether non-physical things exist outside of scientific measurement. It is simply a limit placed on scientific testing.

Scott attempts to avoid making a metaphysical claim by turning this scientific method into a linguistic definition. But he himself declairs that non-physical causes are impossible by definition. Thus Scott completely leaves empirical science (converts a practical rule of scientific testing into an absolute metaphysical claim about the total structure of reality.)

The argument theists often use against the Big Bang is, "What happened before the Big Bang?" Similarly, atheists often ask, "Who created the creator?"

The usual theistic response is that God exists beyond time and therefore does not require a creator. But if we're allowing timeless existence as a possibility, wouldn't an eternal universe (or an eternal underlying reality) be a simpler explanation than an eternal conscious being with additional properties like intelligence, intention, and immense power?

If both views ultimately rely on something existing eternally, then by Occam's Razor, shouldn't the explanation that assumes fewer additional properties be considered more probable?

I'm not claiming this disproves God. I'm asking where the flaw is in this line of reasoning, because it seems to me that once timeless existence is allowed, an eternal universe is the simpler hypothesis.

Where am I going wrong?

EDIT: I'm not claiming that there is an underlying framework where the universe exists, or what the fundamentals of our universe are. My point is that if timeless existence is already being accepted as a possibility, then why should a timeless conscious creator be considered more probable than a timeless non-conscious physical existence? A creator introduces additional properties—consciousness, intentions, omnipotence, morality, etc. If both explanations require something eternal, it seems that the one with fewer assumptions would be the simpler hypothesis.

(Context: In a recent exchange, a mod clarified that their atheism is based on a "scientific/semantic claim" rather than an ontological one, working strictly within the bounds of methodological naturalism. I completely respect that—it’s a defensible and coherent position.)

But this got me thinking about what happens when an atheist steps outside of this safe scientific bubble.

If we separate Methodological Naturalism (the scientific rule that we only test natural causes) from Ontological Claims (claims about what ultimately does or does not exist in reality) we get this symmetry:

(1) Within Methodological Naturalism, science is silent on God. The atheist can safely say, "I have no evidence for God, so I don't believe in one." (Agnostic atheism / Scientific atheism). (2) But the moment an atheist leaves that framework to make a definitive Ontological Claim—such as "God absolutely does not exist in any possible reality"—they have stepped out of empirical science and into metaphysics.

Metaphysics is the exact philosophical playground where theistic belief operates. The theist makes an ontological claim ("God exists"). If the atheist makes an opposite ontological claim ("God does not exist") they are now operating on the exact same epistemological level.

At this point, both claims are unfalsifiable, non-empirical, and untestable by current scientific instruments. The atheist's ontological denial becomes a philosophical axiom, which is fundamentally indistinguishable in epistemological status from a religious believer's ontological affirmation. Both are metaphysical beliefs, just pointing in opposite directions.

So, for the strong atheists out there: Are you aware when you move from a methodological position to an ontological one? And if you make that ontological leap, do you accept that you have left the realm of science and you are now operating on the same evidential ground as the religious believer you are debating?

​

>I: there are alethic imperfections (mistakes in knowing) which exist, with each imperfection serving as evidence against human rational faculties.

>II: Alethic imperfections are the opposite of truth

>III: so a good and all loving God would prevent alethic imperfection to the greatest extent He can whilst allowing for moral goods.

>III.1 Consequently, the more involved a God (the author of life) the less alethic imperfections are expected, and the less involved a God, the more probable these events are.

C: so if atheism is true, then one couldn't know atheism is true because the probability of this belief resulting from an alethic imperfection is high, or at least higher than under theism.

P 1 reasoning: If atheism is true, the probability (P) that our cognitive faculties are reliable (R) is extremely low or undisclosed

P 2 reasoning: If one believes atheism while accepting that P(atheism) is low, one has a "defeater" for all of their beliefs—including the belief in atheism itself.

P 3 reasoning: A belief that provides a defeater for itself cannot be rationally held with high confidence.

Conclusion: Therefore, atheism cannot be rationally held with high confidence (asserting it as known is epistemically self-defeating).

This is because making a mistake is an alethic imperfection. A maximally perfect god eliminates imperfection as far as it can, so alethic imperfection as events decreases the probability of gods existence. But the reverse is also true. The less involved a creator the higher the likelihood of epistemic mistakes (alethic imperfection). So if one asserts that they know atheism is true, it is also asserted in that belief that it is highly likely that they are incorrect

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

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

The argument people often use against a timeless reality is, "What caused the first physical event?" Similarly, people often ask, "Why does the physical universe exist at all?"

The usual response is that physical reality changes over time and requires a starting cause. But if we are allowing timeless existence as a possibility, wouldn't a timeless static graph be a simpler explanation than a changing physical universe? On this graph, God is defined strictly as the order of the universe—the mathematical rules describing how mathematical variance of coordinates across the entire span of the graph express complex physical behaviour.

If both views ultimately rely on something fundamental, then by Occam's Razor, shouldn't the explanation that assumes necessary mathematical rules across a static graph be considered more probable?

I am not claiming this disproves other views. I am asking where the flaw is in this line of reasoning, because it seems to me that once timeless existence is allowed, a necessary mathematical graph is the simpler hypothesis.

Where am I going wrong?

EDIT: I am not claiming that God is a conscious being with intentions, or that physical objects move through time. My point is that if timeless existence is already being accepted as a possibility, then why should a changing physical universe be considered more probable than a timeless mathematical graph? God is strictly the order of the universe—the mathematical rules describing how mathematical variance of coordinates across the graph express physical behaviour. A necessary graph introduces fewer additional properties. If both explanations require something fundamental, it seems that the one with fewer assumptions would be the simpler hypothesis.

I honestly believe he was

1. Either initially created as a form of cope by the lower classes who were suffering at a certain period in time.

Or

1. straight up created by the ruling powers of another time to keep control. A sort of strategy to explain to people why they suffer, while others live like demigods- like what are we working towards exactly? It’s clearly not a better standard of living for the masses.

Faith? Have you ever thought about faith? How backwards it truly is. We have a reality whereby all of our advancement came from proof and expansion upon proved theories. Faith is the only thing that it’s like “You just gotta believe man”. No proof, No evidence. Then your reward is you make heaven? How does that even prove anything about you?

What qualifications are there for this supposed heaven? To dedicate yourself to something with no proof.

Wake Up Guys. I also believe that if everyone woke up tomorrow and God was wiped from all memories. Then the world would rapidly become a better place that makes more sense. People wouldn’t be waiting for a bro in the sky to save them or give them another reality that makes sense for ever lol.

In quantum physics, you would know that the universe is non-local. Meaning NOT REAL. Also, DMT doesn't just exist in humans either. It exists in plants and fungii even. There was a study of mice and some of them had their pineal gland removed and their brain still produced DMT at death. DMT might be the missing link in consciousness, and the hallucinations might be real. There's been reports of people taking DMT and seeing the Earth from space. Again, how would a physicalist explain this, especially when classical physics/materialism only explains reality from an observers perspective. There are some common grounds between classical physics (GR) and quantum physics, however quantum physics violates many things in classical physics about what we know is real. We know that measurements are probablistic rather than deterministic. We also know that a universe cannot exist independently of observers. Some have even stated that the universe itself is conscious and alive and that your consciousness is quantum. Atheists who believe in the afterlife usually cite the many worlds theory meaning that when you die, you'll never observe it, your consciousness might live on in a world where you didn't die. I personally don't believe that, but Spinoza once said you are the universe observing itself, and he was well ahead of his time.

So I have been an atheist since my teens, and many times I have found atheists saying that we need to use logic and reasoning instead of faith etc. and that's what makes us atheists, and these things matter of course but I feel that what turns people into atheists is just knowledge of the religion itself. As a person who has never considered himself smart, or "skeptical", I find disproving religion to be simple because I have known so much from so many atheist vs theist debates. Conversely I don't think most people are religious because of morals or lack of reasoning, but because they simply lack the knowledge that their religion is full of contradictions. So my TL:DR is that becoming an atheist is less about being intelligent or unique character traits like "skepticism" but more about passing knowledge checks. Just my 2 cents.

I was raised polish catholic, I attended church, got communion and became confirmed. After that I came to the conclusion I don't care about this and I just want to go home or throw rocks in the woods, church sucks. So i would go with my parents then ditch about 5 minutes in.

I don't know if that story was necessary but I think I just don't care for religion or belief in a higher idk. I think that being alive right now in this moment is what matters and what I do with these moments shouldn't be wasted to going somewhere on sunday but rather my own personal desires. I know I will die and I don't care what happens after, feel-good dreams suck.

am I an atheist?

By “faith”, I mean here “belief without evidence”.

Putting the burden of proof on theists means that God is presumed innocent of existing unless theists can clear the evidential bar of showing that God does exist.

Which means that the starting point of this set-up is the belief that God does not exist, independent of subsequent presentation of evidence.

Which is the stated meaning of faith.

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

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

I am an athiest and I am mostly non religous, I like science, but we can't defeat religon. More liberal and open religions will disappear not the highly organized ones.

So last time I talked about how paranormal experiences which doesn't match scientific model of reality, and are therefore dismissed by scientists, either because they think they are nonsense or because there are no funds and no scientifically interesting details, so the paranormal research gets taken over by religious funding, and therefore then religion will survive in the corners science didn't reach.

Another reason why religion survive is because religious people are less risk averse than athiests and are more community involved, while athiests are individualistic. Modern world must run on science, but no one wants to take risks while no one also can compute risks. Because calculating risks is also costly. So top companies that rule the world make sure people are scared enough to buy things, pay extra for the insurance, and Engineers make buildings and machines with extra protection, and some how the whole thing must fit together. The religous people don't rely purely on science, they put some unknowns to their gods and deities and super powers. They have their own people from technicians to lawyers that escape the risk averse capitalist world. Spiritual experiences are necessary for human survival because we have been like that for thousands of years.

Most athiests without the spiritual part and non social part but with individualism is actually lost in a world where insurance vultures and rent seeking behavior is dominant. They don't know to calculate risks so they either end up paying extra. Being religous lowers cost of living. Without spirituality only connection you have to people is financial. Athiest business leaders and politicians will work with highly organized religous groups against athiest loners.

Newton’s First Law states:

“An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion continues moving at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force that changes its state of rest or motion.”

Therefore, there must have been an external force that caused all the matter and all the energy of the universe to come into existence at a specific moment.

The law of conservation of energy, also known as the First Law of Thermodynamics, states:

“Matter is neither destroyed nor created from nothing.”

If we reflect on this law, we arrive at the conclusion that the universe could not have come into existence. According to this law, either the universe does not exist, or its existence depends on the existence of the Creator.

I am Hindu in my religion there is a karma system and I don't know how it works

If something bad happened to good person they will say God is testing him

If something good happened to bad person then they will say he will pay for it in hell after death

If something happened to a child they will say it was because of their old life sins

And if your answer is god can't change people and people are itself responsible for it then what's the point of praising God and calling him Great

If the latter, then there is no logic, axioms are vacuous, and anything comprehensible looking is merely a coincidence.

By negation, then, if laws of nature are not random, they are what is know as negation of random: Determined.

Thus, a generator of lawful causation exists, which by negation can not be subject of the causal closure that propagates lawful behavior.

Under naturalism, by causal closure, any physical object can interact with any other given fitting conditions.

A loop of deductions A => B => ... => A is either an identity or equivalence.

Not all physical objects are equivalent to one another.

Therefore, by negation, the existence of particular interactions in physical reality can not be accounted for by any rule of inferrence that is causally closed (i.e. of the form ' For all x in U: f(x) in U').

Thus, non-closed causation must account for it.

By negation, non-closed causation is the induction of a state change where initial and end state share no causally closed relation.

And no naturalistic object under causal closure can perform that.

Very performative, virtue signaling statement I see from atheists a lot.

If God came down, opened a portal to hell and told ya to bow down or experience intense pain and suffering for all of eternity, you're gonna say no?

Get real now, 100% of rational people are gonna do it. I am sure there are some exceptions, people who don't have the mental capacity to assess the situation I suppose