Thesis: the 10 Commandments as presented in the Bible are weak, indicting they did not come from god.

These are the 10 commandments as presented in the Bible:

• You shall have no other gods before Me.
• You shall not make idols.
• You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
• Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
• Honor your father and your mother.
• You shall not murder.
• You shall not commit adultery.
• You shall not steal.
• You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
• You shall not covet

Now, 3 of the, are egocentric, for Jews 4 (and that still doesn’t resolve that it was a wasted spot for christians if it would be fulfilled later). I do think I can get behind the name in vain on, however. the next is a very non universifiable law, which I wouldn’t put on the priority list. The next one is obvious, and has been part of all legal codes basically since they started writings those down. The next 3 are in similar positions. and finally, we get a law about not being jealous? You can’t actually control jealousy, so this is very difficult to practice, and also doesn’t really matter that much. Next I have to ask: why were we confined by 10? they could’ve done 12 to match the tribes and sons. And don’t get started on the missing laws: nothing anti-slavery, no be kind to everyone, no indicate of germs and washing hands. I believe that if these laws aren’t perfect, then they are not likely to come from god.

The strongest objections to the Prime Mover argument (particularly Aquinas's First Way and related cosmological arguments) fall into three categories: logical gaps, empirical challenges, and explanatory failures.

1. The Special Pleading / Brute Fact Problem

The most persistent objection: if everything requires a mover or cause, why does the Prime Mover escape this requirement?

Defenders reply that the Prime Mover is unmoved by definition—it is the termination point of the explanatory chain. But the atheist can reframe the objection: why assume the chain needs termination at all? If the universe itself is accepted as a brute fact (a necessary, uncaused existent), the explanatory work is done without importing an extra metaphysical entity. The theist stops the regress with God; the atheist stops it with nature.

2. Infinite Regress Is Not Obviously Impossible

The argument assumes an infinite regress of causes is metaphysically impossible. But:

- Modern set theory handles actual infinities without contradiction.
- In physics, infinite regress models (e.g., cyclic cosmologies, eternal inflation) are mathematically coherent.
- Aquinas's claim that an infinite regress of simultaneous causes is impossible relies on a medieval physics of motion that doesn't obviously survive modern scrutiny.

3. The Quantum Challenge to "Everything Moved Is Moved by Another"

The premise that every change requires an external changer is empirically suspect. Quantum events—radioactive decay, spontaneous particle pair production, vacuum fluctuations—appear to be genuinely uncaused at the level of physical description. If physical reality contains uncaused motion, the foundational premise of the argument collapses.

4. The Gap Problem: Prime Mover ≠ God

Even granting a first cause or unmoved mover, nothing in the argument establishes:

- Consciousness or intentionality
- Omnipotence

Or that it’s even the Christian God to begin with.

1- The origin of the universe: Theism explains the origin of the universe as God + God's deliberate will + God's personal nature, while Naturalism explains it with more parsimonious hypotheses (such as quantum field theory + cosmic inflation theory).

2- The existence of the universe: In Theism, orthodox philosophical and theological schools argue that God did not necessarily create the universe; therefore, according to both Theism and Naturalism, this universe could have existed or could not have existed. There is no dominant hypothesis here.

3- Fine-tuning: According to Theism, God does not need to create fine-tuning; fine-tuning could have existed or could not have existed. However, Naturalism strongly suggests fine-tuning because complex biological structures require complex physicochemical structures. [In naturalism, since the universe was not intended to create biological systems and most parts of the universe are lethal to life, we would expect biological systems to cluster in a small area and have a very complex basis.]

4- Consciousness and Qualia: While dualism is more advantageous in explaining subjective experience, Naturalism better explains the dependence of consciousness on the brain and split-brain experiments. There is no dominant hypothesis here.

5- Problems with the Holy Books: Theists must offer more arguments than Naturalism to explain the problems in the Holy Books [fictions that contradict science (e.g., the 6,000-year-old Earth), anachronistic fictions, fictional ancestors who gave their names (e.g., Israel/Jacob and his 12 sons), etiological fictions (e.g., Adam and Eve), slanderous myths (e.g., the story of Lot and his two daughters)...]. The naturalistic explanation (human influence) is far more parsimonious.

6- Fallacies in the Holy Books: When theists try to explain the fallacies in the Holy Books [the circularity fallacy, the ad hominem fallacy, the appeal to emotion (especially fear) fallacy...], the theistic hypothesis becomes less parsimonious.

7- Cultural syncretism: The theistic hypothesis becomes less parsimonious when theists try to explain why their sacred texts contain remnants of mythology [e.g., Ziusudra (Sumerian mythology) ---> Utnapishtim/Atrahasis (Babylonian mythology) ---> Noah (Old and New Testaments, Quran)].

8- Inconsistent revelations and religious diversity: Religious exclusionists, lacking an objective interreligious epistemology for comparing religions, present ad hoc arguments to explain only their own religion's truth. Religious pluralists must offer numerous arguments to explain why contradictory religions are on the same path of truth and why the test is not meaningless [if all religions were true, the test would lose its meaning]. However, since it is based on naturalism, anthropology, and comparative religious history, it explains how and why mythologies and religions arose in a more parsimonious way, in my opinion.

9- Moral evils, natural evils (evolutionary, animal, innate evils), distribution of pain and pleasure: While theism constructs theodicies (e.g., theodicy of soul development) and defenses (e.g., the defense of free will + interdimensional corruption) to explain moral evils, it cannot explain why natural evils and the distribution of pain and pleasure are random. Theists use a different argument (skeptical theism) for natural evils. However, the theodicies and defenses used by Theists also have problems (for example, the multiverse theodicy undermines the fine-tuning argument, the soul development theodicy cannot explain extreme suffering, the free will + interdimensional corruption defense is not valid in heaven. Furthermore, interdimensional corruption is not logically necessary, and the existence of moral evils is not logically necessary for the existence of a test. Similarly, the skeptical theism defense used for natural evils draws an epistemological arbitrary boundary and can epistemically harm other arguments. Naturalism, on the other hand, explains these three different phenomena with only one hypothesis: the "indifference hypothesis." The naturalistic hypothesis is both stronger in terms of explanatory power and more parsimonious.

10- The origin of religion: Theists argue that God facilitated the evolution of the human brain and naturally gave rise to religion. Naturalists, however, argue that the human brain's search for an agent for events in the environment (HADD - Hyperactive Agent Detection Device). The device evolved and the emergence of religion involves various contributing factors (the desire for justice in a chaotic universe, the desire for immortality, the need to fill epistemic gaps regarding the universe [humans did not evolve to be comfortable with uncertainty], functioning as proto-laws for early states, bringing together people who do not know each other, restraining immoral individuals, preventing the rebellion of oppressed classes...). Here, too, the naturalistic hypothesis is both stronger in terms of explanatory power and more parsimonious.

11- Is religion a choice or an orientation? (The problem of doxastic voluntarism and the problem of geographical/cultural buffers): Since belief is an orientation, not a choice, this directly supports Naturalism. The theistic hypothesis becomes less parsimonious when theists try to explain how people surrounded by cultural buffers [e.g., people in India] can make an objective choice of religion.

12- Miracles: The theistic hypothesis becomes less parsimonious when theists try to explain why we should epistemologically attribute trust in miracles [The epistemological reliability of miracles decreases due to the continuity of the laws of nature].

13- The history of the Universe and Earth (Hitchens' argument): According to naturalism, it takes a very long time for complex beings like humans to form. But God does not need such a long time. This gives naturalism an advantage.

14- Cosmological and biological disteleology: Naturalism explains cosmological and biological flaws (the universe being hostile to life but friendly to black holes and stars, blind spots in the eye, useless organs like the appendix and wisdom teeth, genetic diseases...) more powerfully and parsimoniously than theism.

15- The origin of morality: Evolutionary ethics and utilitarianism explain flawed practical morality and normative morality more parsimoniously than God.

16- The future of the universe: According to theism, apocalypse is inevitable, meaning that God is assumed to intervene in the universe at least once. Today, mainstream cosmological models say that the universe will expand indefinitely. The naturalistic hypothesis is more parsimonious.

17- Free will: For the test to be valid, there must be the luxury of being able to do otherwise (libertarian free will). But if your actions have a cause or not (if they are random), you do not have the luxury of being able to do otherwise. Compatibility is more compatible with Naturalism.

The biggest mistake theists make is acting as if the problem is completely solved when they explain a phenomenon. This is called "Ignoring Cumulative Probability" in epistemology. However, when they put forward more additional arguments than Naturalism to explain most points, the probability of Theism being true decreases cumulatively according to the principle of parsimony.

My argument:

God is:

→ All-Powerful

→ All-Loving

→ All-Caring

→ All-Wise

→ All-Rational

Yet:

God → Created a world → Suffering exists

────────────────────────────

1. NATURAL SUFFERING

Diseases, illnesses, floods, earthquakes, etc.

↓

Is God responsible for their existence?

↓

YES

↓

Can God prevent them?

↓

NO → Then He is not All-Powerful.

YES → Then why does He allow them?

↓

Contradiction with All-Loving / All-Caring

────────────────────────────

1. FREE-WILL SUFFERING

Rape, war, violence, etc.

↓

Is God responsible?

↓

On the surface: NO — humans freely choose these actions.

↓

But go deeper:

Who created human beings with lust, greed, anger,

ignorance and other potentially destructive desires?

↓

GOD

↓

Why?

↓

"Because life is a TEST."

↓

Why would God corrupt a pure soul, Trap it in flesh, then expect it to resist the desires He created?

↓

Contradicts ALL-RATIONAL / ALL-WISE

Christianity is a derivative of Judaism. Islam came out of Christianity. So Islam is a cheap copy of Christianity. Thus, Islam is the cheapest version of Judaism. Christianity arose from Judaism and adopted many of its basic writings, ideas and religious traditions, but developed its own teaching from it. Islam originated centuries later and in turn takes up numerous Jewish and Christian figures, stories and beliefs. I say this as an absolute atheist. Tell me I’m wrong.

Let's pretend for a moment that the Gospel authors were, in fact, people personally named Mark, Luke, John and Matthew, and they had perfect memories, perfect translation skills, perfect comprehension of the message they received, and the works they created went perfectly unaltered over the centuries and millennia. I'm going to grant all this because people fixate on the document once the document's made, but there's a much, much larger problem than "we don't have the original document".

With all that granted, any reasonable skeptic is left with a very simple, but very important question: "How did Mark, Luke, John and Matthew learn and confirm this?".

Let's take Mark as a basic example. Mark was associated with Peter, and is treated like a biographer of sorts on behalf of Peter's narrative. No other sources, research criteria, interviews, independent verification or anything is ever provided. Thus, the very simple structure of Mark's source of knowledge is this:

Peter told Mark it was true, and Mark believed it. And then Mark wrote it down, and now a bunch of people believe it.

No verification's provided. No evidence. Nothing but "trust me".

Matthew mostly rewrites Mark, anyway, so we can hardly count that as independent, and there's a similar complete lack of any reason to believe anything happened provided besides "trust me and my totally anonymous witnesses".

Luke is the first one to event pretend to try to validate the story, by saying that it's a "well-ordered account" that they explicitly were not an eyewitness to. What was Luke's validation process and verification methodology? Well, "trust me" seems to be it. Absolutely no reason to believe it's true, and given the false lineage he threw in for Jesus, a lot of reason to believe he's prone to exaggeration.

The Q hypothesis highlights this perfectly - people are just proposing that some totally anonymous secondary source contributed to Matthew and Luke due to shared overlaps between the non-Mark bits, and this Q source is claimed to be trustworthy and reliable despite not even being shown to exist. If they are shown to exist, the Christian narrative would require that they be a reliable witness, or else the Gospels would be in danger.

And John "knows his testimony is true". How does he know? "trust me".

And that's what it comes down to. Christianity requires that everyone telling Mark, Luke, John and Matthew things be trustworthy, and that those four aren't gullible, don't fall into cult-like early religious movements, weren't tricked, weren't lied to, understood what they were being told, retained perfect memories of the events and then maintained them for decades, and then did their perfect transcription process, in order to believe that the events that were described actually happened as described.

So to summarize: There's a few possible Christian claims here.

One is that Luke, John, Mark and Matthew investigated and validated these stories, and just chose not to write down any of their methodology for confirming anything for some reason. Seems like a colossal error if you're trying to convince someone that unlikely events are true (which is the explicit goal of the Good Word being spread), and something only people who didn't actually do any proper verification would do. I'm interested in Christians taking this position, and how you defend the complete lack of any verification process provided.

Two is that they simply did not validate the stories and believed them at their word. That seems like a great way to be tricked into believing false things. After all, all cults across the world recruit exactly by tricking people into believing false things, and it works on people so well that they end up trying to spread the message themselves, in dozens of mutually contradictory faiths and belief systems across the world, constantly. Why would we believe that an unvalidated story is true? I'm interested in Christians taking this position, and how you defend not validating the stories and simply taking them at face value and by faith. I believe that this is the more honest Christian position personally, as it lines up with believing in things unseen.

And that's what it comes down to. If it is true, there was no reason for them to not go validate where the story is coming from, how they know it's true and who confirmed it. If they did that, there's no reason not to provide what they validated and how. And yet, this entire billion-person religion hinges on anonymous stories told to people who refused to provide any form of validation for these anonymous stories for reasons I'm really hoping some Christian here can explain.

A fascinating way to test my theory is to challenge Christians thus: Provide even a possible hypothetical timeline of communications and events, and see if you can come up with one that doesn't provoke major information control questions or contradict fundamental tenets of Christianity. You can start at the Crucifixion itself, as events before that generally aren't notable. I tried for a few hours and couldn't get anywhere, since the tomb ladies simply didn't tell anyone and that information traveling seems to make no sense, and same for some private conversations Jesus had, but I'm hoping you all can find a workaround for these massive issues. A correct timeline will either include all events the Bible made explicit, or explain why some events the Bible made explicit aren't real, and connect them together into a cohesive narrative of, "This is potentially a model of how Christianity was born".

For this debate I'm focusing on Christians as they are the most heavy users of this term and where the majority of criticisms for that term is directed at.

I want to preface this with the fact that I was a Christian for some 20 years of my life and that my experience growing up in and around a number of different flavours of Christianity, I've seen first-hand how it is that the term "faith" is mostly used. I am aware that my own testimony, in the grand scheme of evidence I can demonstate, isn't much, but during those 20 years I've certainly seen enough to take what I'm saying here seriously and emphasize that this is a real issue, especially when juxtaposed with the fact it still gets used in that way today.

Within Christianity, "Faith" as it is most commonly used (and criticized for) has the following definition:

• When what is considered good reasons or evidence to present or use to support why it is you believe something to be true, can no longer be presented and there still remains strong criticisms of that truth, then one can cite "faith" as a justification for still maintaining that belief.

In other words, it is used in an epistemic sense and is essentially the "blind faith" that is so often levied as criticism at Christians exclaiming things like:

• "That's a matter of faith"
• "Well, that's where faith comes in"
• "You just gotta have faith"

The most common environment this type of faith gets used is in Christian circles (church services, bible studies or any event specifically for fellow believers). Especially when they aren't on the alert that a skeptic or critic might be listening in, where they can freely be "strong in their faith" and have it praised and heralded by those around them as something to proud of.

To take a relatively well-known apologist and academic in John Lennox, an ardent defender of "faith", he openly states that faith has to be evidence based lest it become "blind faith" as he says.

I've heard this particular response to criticisms directed at the type of "faith" I've outlined above before, i.e that faith simply means "trust or confidence in something" which is naturally based on evidence and sound reasoning to have that belief. But that then raises the question;

• Then what reason remains to use the term "faith" anymore?

Even if we take Hebrews 11:1 with "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." it still carries an implicit "evidence" for those reasons. If it simply means "trust" or "confidence" well, then, use those terms. If they are perfectly adequate in portraying the meaning that "faith" also holds, then don't use the term "faith". Otherwise, by using that term you must know that you're creating ripe grounds for equivocation and that, I would argue, is exactly what happens.

There is no doubt that the "blind" definition and usage of faith is ever-present within Christianity. My 20 years experience within Christianity has observed this, there are plenty examples of it and to this day people still use it in that way. But when this is questioned of criticized, people rarely, if ever, are willing to acknowledge it is the "blind" type of faith is what they mean, but rather point at the more easily defended version (i.e the trust/confidence version). Invariably a Motte and Bailey usage of the term.

Now, to make sure my point doesn't get dragged off down discussing other definitions, I should be vigilant in acknowledging there are other definitions. Although I originally thought I don't really need to include them in this given the context/nature of its usage, but my experience is that if people can derail the original point with semantics, they will, thus, the other definition (but not relative to the context of this particular point);

• Faith can also be synonymous with "religion". I.E The Christian faith or the Islamic faith or Hindu faith.

My argument is that it behooves any Christian who would use the term "faith" to do the following;

• Stop using it and stick with "trust" or "confidence" to avoid confusion.
• Correct your fellow Christians and highlight the issues with potential equivocation and/or the Motte and Bailey requirements to defend their usage.

Unless Christians can provide a definition that isn't simply "trust" or "confidence" and isn't the "blind" version of faith then it seems obvious that the above two options are the only reasonable conclusions.

Trust and confidence, if your reasons for believing are based on evidence, are more than adequate and by using either of those terms you avoid any criticisms aimed at "blind faith". But if we know people use "blind faith" when they say "faith" but we know that faith has other more "legit" meaning then there is no real excuse to continue using the term "faith" in favor of other equally suitable words, unless you are knowingly equivocating.

"Blind faith" should never be used, as it's dangerous and certainly not a reliable path to truth and thus, as is often the case, most people are quick to distance themselves from that definition.

In Exodus 17:14: God says he will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven, and yet their memory persists:
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this as a remembrance in a book and recite it in the hearing of Joshua: I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”

The often-Christian claim that God is timeless, immutable and changeless is nonsensical.

If a "being" is timeless, it does not "exist" in temporal order so there is no “before” or “after.” Any action, thought, or change would require a sequence of events, which is impossible without time. Therefore, a timeless being cannot initiate or undergo a transition into a temporal state or to create a universe.

In fact, I have to put quotes around "exist" and "being" because even those terms are nonsensical when considering a timeless entity.

William Lane Craig is a strong advocate for the concept of a timeless God, but when he tries to explain it, he often ends up using metaphors that involve time. For instance, he describes God as a person who sits for eternity and then, at some point, stands up to create the universe. In doing so, he repeatedly sneaks elements of time into his explanations.

And here’s the kicker: they reject the idea of infinite regress, even though there’s nothing inherently illogical about it, yet embrace the notion of a timeless entity suddenly deciding to will the universe into existence.

Assuming, for sake of argument that some formulation of classical Theism is true, there would then exist an uncreated, necessary, eternal mind which chose to bring all of what we experience as contingent reality into existence.

But from that perspective, whatever we call "natural intelligence" (i.e., human minds, organic cognition, biological brains) is not natural. In the deepest sense, it is created, it depends for its existence and structure and continued operation on the prior will and design of the Creator. And in that framework, every finite mind is simply an artifact, an engineered system running on physical hardware which our Creator chose to engineer and instantiate. The Creator’s own intelligence is, by contrast, the only true natural intelligence, the only uncaused, unengineered, independent of any substrate one, and not the product of any prior process. The only one which simply is.

But if our Creator is the sole natural intelligence, that makes humans (and any other created minds) artificial intelligence, from its perspective.

This is not even a metaphor. If we are contingent products of that being, our consciousness, reasoning, and self-awareness may well be real, but they are derivative. They are simply the programmed output of a system which the natural mind designed and sustains. Considering that debates about whether AI can be truly conscious or truly intelligent often assume that biological minds are the standard for what counts as natural or authentic, from a theistic vantage point, that assumption is already one step removed from the foundational natural ground of existence. Biological minds themselves would then simply be first generation of artificial intelligence, and digital ones would simply be the second.

Conclusion: If Theism is true, then the only intelligence that is not artificial is the one which created everything else, and to it, we are the AI.

17 Then the high priest took action; he and all who were with him (that is, the sect of the Sadducees), being filled with jealousy, 18 arrested the apostles and put them in the public prison. 19 But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors, brought them out,

If we are to believe in this passage, then it's rather conclusive that God has the omnipotence to undo human suffering, that he is capable of interfering in human lives by releasing the apostles from prison. Therefore, if worldly suffering persists, then it must be that he allows it.

Basically the basis is the concept of original sin and crucifixion,I have looked into it and found that it makes 0 sense

Infinite god=infinite sacrifice

But the infinite cant die or else hes not infinite ,so what christians claim to have happened on thr cross contradicts itself ,,and also why did the children of adam inherit the sin how can you be safe that an unjust god would judge you

And if he was truly all loving why would innocent people suffer for the crimes of their forefathers that were committed before they were ever born?

According to many religious believers, God views us as significant for many reasons.

God made US, God talks to US, God loves US, God literally made US in HIS image. God asks US to pray, he leads US. God thinks WE are special.

Do you see a theme here?

There are over 8 million species on our planet. Each with their own evolutionary characteristics.

We evolved to be highly intelligent creatures, who are also very self-interested and self-involved. Which isn’t inherently wrong.

But when a creature (such as humans) becomes as self-aware as we are, they begin to believe that they are special. The center of the universe. We’re not.

We’re unique because we’re an incredible feat of evolution. We’re very intelligent, creative, resourceful. But… we’re not the only incredible creatures.

Tardigrades (water bears) can survive the vacuum of space. Mantis shrimp have 16 color receptors. Humans only have 3…. Greenland sharks can live for over 400 years.

The list goes on and on.

The idea that humans are special, more special than any other of the 8 million species, and SO special, that God loved US the most and made us to be JUST LIKE HIM.

Is incredibly egoistical.

The definition of egotistical: “Egotistical means having an inflated sense of your own importance, being excessively conceited, and thinking you are better than others.”

Source: Google

Sound familiar? Humans have an inflated sense of importance. We interpret that we have a significant human/God relationship simply because we are human.

Edit: Someone in the comments mentioned that making god in “our image” insinuates that our human physical appearance is special enough to represent an omniscient being.

Which is also… egotistical.

Refer to the definition above.

The debate here nearly always centres on the perennial clash between believers and those who either don't, or those who feel they are unable to make a decision between the two because of a lack of evidence. My argument is that there is logically a further group: those who are indifferent, and in fact resent the strident proselytizing and public ostentation shown by believers, find annoying the knocking on the doors and the persistence of religious accounting in the public sphere - and that we deserve respect as well as a right to be left alone. (I had to create and add the flair of indifference to this posting, which sort of shows what I am saying!)

This is particularly egregious when it comes to some Christians; perhaps not surprising since the Bible instructs Christians to share the message of Jesus and invite others to follow him, In what is known as 'The Great Commission' in Matthew 28:19–20, Jesus tells his disciples to go and "make disciples of all nations," baptizing and teaching them.

(The Qu'ran too tells Muslims to share and remind others about Islam peacefully (but there is very little aggressive or door-to-door proselytizing for Islam in most Muslim-majority countries)

To those who are not, for whatever reason believers in the West, proselytizing can be annoying, especially when any normally educated person might be expected to know the central claims of Christianty.. One can respect the notion of freedom of religion, but it often feels as if there should be a 'freedom from religion,' similar to the right to be forgotten in data law.

I've heard one of the reasons why the religious persist is that it is apparently for our own good, and that they are only thinking of us. i.e "If I genuinely believe that there’s a real Heaven and Hell and that there are eternal consequences for how we live our lives, how much do I have to hate you to not tell you about it"? etc But this is really all about their beliefs, about which one may not care (apart from the fact that the right to such beliefs ought to be guaranteed), a fact which is hard to make them see. It is not that I reject their beliefs; I just am indifferent to everything except the fact I am, once again, being bothered, my privacy intruded - or having my face rubbed in ostentatious display. The parade of bishops or the papal pomp. It is not enough to say that "but millions do want to see it" why does that trump my own preferences? It is a form of Argument from Popularity.

It is is not a matter either of 'a closed mind', of being obdurate in the face of religious claims. I JUST DONT CARE. I am not refusing the religious claims, I just lack interest and want to pass them by, It is not a case of being obdurate but being indifferent. In the same way I don't have a closed mind to how many times waves will beat against my rocky local shore today. I simply lack interest. A someone who is fervently religious may see their conviction as reason to think they are right and to spread the word. But they also find it hard to see that besides those who hold opposing views and need to be converted, there are those who simply lack interest in their overwhelming concern and just want to be left alone. We don't care!

A reasonable objection might be that if I really 'don't care', then why evidently enough do I at least sufficiently to raise my lack of interest here? The answer is that indifference as a presence in the religious debate ought to be recognised and respected as a intellectual position by proselytizers who otherwise will just not stop. In addition to the Grand Commission it ought to be recalled, Jesus also apparently showed compassion and spent time with everyday people who were indifferent to religion. It would be reasonable to think that his followers might take his lead, and please, stand down some.

In Surah An-Nahl (16:43), It tells us to consult people of the book, who r the Christians and Jews in case of confusion regarding Quran. However why will Allah tell us to consult jews and Christians if the Bible and the Torah have been corrupted. So as I see this, there's many such logical flaws in the Quran, and I'll love to know more about Islam so please someone help me answer these questions.

Also, About the scientific thingys mentioned in Quran, one of those are Surah At-Tariq (86:5–7). But clearly, It's not true according to modern science

the origin and material of the Hajar al-Aswad (Black Stone of Mecca)?

Video Overview & Premise
The video explores various scientific attempts and geological hypotheses proposed over time to identify the true geological origin and material of the **Hajar al-Aswad** (the Black Stone of Mecca).
Sequential Summary of Hypotheses Presented

Note : Muslims believe it is from heaven

1. The Meteorite (Aerolite/Siderolite) Hypothesis

   **The Theory:** Secular historians and early catalogers proposed that the stone fell from space as an iron/silicate-rich meteorite.
   **Key Claims/Researchers:**
   **G. T. Prior** categorized the stone as an *aerolite* (a stony meteorite dominated by silicates rather than iron-nickel).
   **Paul Partsch (1857)** suggested it was a meteorite fragment from an impact roughly 6,000 years ago.
   **Anthony Hampton (Oxford)** and other researchers analyzed nearby soil/mineral samples, claiming trace amounts of iridium and shocked zircon fragments—signatures of impact craters.
   **Why it was Debunked/Challenged:**
   **Density / Buoyancy Test:** In 950 AD, the Governor of Mecca (Abdullah ibn Umar / Qarmatian era context) tested verified fragments of the stolen stone and demonstrated that **they float in water**. Meteorites are dense, heavy iron-silicate rocks that sink immediately.
   **No Matching Meteorite:** No known meteorite cataloged worldwide matches the physical/density profile of the Black Stone.
   **Video’s Conclusion:** Disproved / Highly unlikely due to physical density contradictions.

2. The Volcanic / Igneous Rock Hypotheses (Pumice, Obsidian, Agate)

   **The Theory:** The stone was formed via terrestrial volcanism—specifically as lightweight, porous volcanic glass or highly vesicles-filled lava.
   **Key Claims/Researchers:**
   **USGS:** Suggested it might be **obsidian** from lava flows in one of the Arabian Peninsula's volcanic fields (*Harrat*).
   **Robert S. Dietz & John McHone (Univ. of Illinois):** Rejected meteoritic origin and argued it was a terrestrial mineral/ringstone, specifically **agate**, pointing to diffusion banding.
   **Pumice Theory:** Some scientists noted that high-porosity **pumice** has a density of less than 1\\text{ g/cm}\^3, which aligns with reports of the stone floating in water.
   **Why it was Debunked/Challenged:**
   **Arabian Geological Incompatibility:** Volcanism on the Arabian Peninsula consists almost entirely of **basaltic (mafic)** shield volcanoes/flows, which produce dark, heavy basalt—not acidic/felsic silica-rich eruptions that produce pumice.
   **Age Discrepancy:** The few known volcanic calderas in the region (e.g., Jubbah/Jabal) formed \~580 million years ago—far too old to have preserved porous pumice at the surface in this manner.
   **Video’s Conclusion:** Disproved / Geologically unsupported by the volcanic composition of the Arabian Plate.

**3. The Impactite Hypothesis (Wabar Crater Glass)**

The Theory: The stone is an **impactite**—a terrestrial rock melted and transformed into glass by the extreme heat and pressure of a high-speed meteorite crash.
**Key Claims/Researchers:**
**Elsebeth Thomsen (Univ. of Copenhagen):** Proposed that the stone is an impactite formed at the **Wabar Meteorite Crater** (550 km southeast of Riyadh in the Rub' al-Khali desert).
**Consistency:** Impactite slag from Wabar consists of white silica glass coated in black, highly porous impact glass (matching both the Islamic tradition that it was originally white and turned black, and its ability to float due to trapped gas vesicles).
**Why it was Debunked/Challenged:**
**Chronological Mismatch:** Radiometric dating and thermoluminescence testing of the Wabar crater glass revealed the impact occurred around **1704 AD** (only a few centuries ago), whereas historical records and the construction of the Kaaba date back thousands of years.
**Video’s Conclusion:** Disproved / Structurally plausible, but chronologically impossible.
**Overall Video Conclusion**
The video concludes that science currently has **no matching terrestrial rock, meteorite, or impactite** that accounts for all physical characteristics of the Hajar al-Aswad (density/floating, dark exterior with white internal structure, and local geological context), leaving its exact origin scientifically unresolved.

Video : https://youtu.be/8Yn99VEoS8c?is=RFLHJAaW-DBeHqcr

And I'm not saying that has to be a bad thing, necessarily; that doesn't have to be a problem, but it does mean Christians need to rethink questions like "was it objectively bad for/to (insert any horrible thing you can think of)", because the Christian answer to this question is entirely dependent on who did the action.

Any action that a Christian would otherwise deem objectively immoral flip/flops to objectively moral if there's a little asterisk afterward that indicates it's a Divine Command. I don't think it's much of a concession for a Christian to say that morality is subjective; it's just subjective to the mind of God. That's not too different from secular frameworks where rights and responsibilities depend on the individual.

I mean, a clear example is killing infants. It seems that Christians don't think it's always objectively wrong to kill infants. Sometimes, it's objectively good, so long as God tells you to.

There's a second, related problem that stems from this Christian moral framework, and it goes something like this: Objectively bad things, even when they're not done by or commanded by God, are still "necessary". You see this type of moral relativism when you ask a Christian if the crucifixion was good or bad. You get a "all of the above." Bad things are objectively bad, but they also have to happen, and it would be worse if they didn't happen.

I don't think this is anywhere close to a coherent moral framework. Under this structure, I can't know for sure whether something is good or bad unless I also know if God ordered it, and then, even if he didn't order it, I still have to categorize that bad thing as something that had to happen.

I don't even know what "bad" means anymore. You're stuck in this moral paralysis where your only important task is figuring out whether God said it or someone is tricking you into thinking God said it, and then even if you fail that task, it doesn't matter, because if you end up doing a bad thing, it was required of you, since the objectively bad thing was needed for the greater good.

(I think the bottom line that helps believers cut through all this nonsense is just "what gets me into heaven", but Christians don't like their morality framed that way, even though that's how it works)

I think this should be an uncontroversial argument. It does not logically force theism, it only says that one particular worldview explains one particular thing better than another.

Pyscho-Physical-Harmony is the idea that our minds and conscious experiences, are systematically correlated with the real world, in such a manner that is harmonious

Premise 1: Psycho-Physical-Harmony exists

Premise 2: Given Naturalistic evolution, (In which we would be evolving with the purpose to maximize life, and reproduction) there is no reason to expect that our minds would evolve in a manner that would be specifically harmonious with the real world, as there is an infinite number of disharmonious conceptions of reality that would produce the same effect.

This is why Albert Einstein once said "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe, is the fact that it is comprehensible."

example: Imagine there is a tiger infront of you, and you're a human from 20,000 years ago in some random dessert. You can either think "Tigers want to play games with me, I don't like that tiger's game, so I'm gonna get away from the tiger" or you can think "Tigers are dangerous predators, I wanna live, so I'll get away from the tiger".

Both of those thoughts would produce an action that leads to the same evoloutionary conclusion, and there is an innumerable amount of possible wrong answers that can lead to survival, and reproduction.

Premise 3: Given Theism (the idea that there is a God who is a loving, self-revelatory, powerful, creator) Pyscho-Physical-Harmony is very strongly suggested. If our minds were designed by a God who has things to communicate, and glory that he wants to be shown, then psycho-physical-harmony is an obvious feature of humanity.

This is an argument that the Philosopher Alvin Plantiga Makes.

Conclusion: Pyscho-Physical-Harmony is explained best by theism, as opposed to naturalistic unguided evolution.

Our minds are so strongly correlated with the world around us, that we can cognize quantum mechanics, astorphysics, the inner-workings of the human body, and a whole plethora of deep concepts.

This specific level of potential for harmonious cognition extends FAR beyond what we would expect if the primary driving factor behind the evoloution of our minds was mere reproduction.

If my desires were realized, any true, actual God that existed would clear up the massive confusion all these different theistic positions caused, and then deconstruct the forced behavioral override known as sin that forces everyone to misbehave against their will. I don't want sin, I don't want to sin, and being forced to be a sinner against my will is distinctly unpleasant.

God, however, sees fit to mandate sin, no matter how much reasonable people desire otherwise, overriding our free will and forcing us away from Heaven. Forcing us to inherit it was not a good design decision, and the "cure" adds a ton of unnecessary baggage like epistemic standards that has nothing to do with sinning.

Thesis: islam gives a coherent account of Adam and Eve, while christianity gives an incoherent account that makes humanity suffer for one man’s sin.

In islam we dont even claim that god loves everyone unconditionally or that every action of god is an act of love or mercy. Yet islam still gives a more loving and coherent account of what happened with adam.

So in islam, adam and eve sin, realized their mistake and sincerely repent. God forgives them. That's it. Adam and Eve demonstrated that humans can recognise their mistakes, repent and return to god. Their descendants do not inherit their sin. Every human is born innocent and judged for their own choices. Adam is then sent to earth, but this was not a punishment caused by his sin. God had already announced before creating adam that humanity was intended to live on earth.

In christianity adam’s sin corrupted humanity, brought death upon his descendants and made everyone inherit guilt or a sinful condition. Which is also unbiblical:

The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child.
ezekiel 18.20

Inherited guilt contradicts the bible’s own standard of individual responsibility and contradicts justice. You don't punish someone for a crime someone else comitted.

God also knew adam would make the mistake, allowed the snake into the garden and then made people suffer because of adam's choice. Which seems contradictory since the biblical account almost portrays it as a surprise to God that adam ate from the tree.

Conclusion: The christian story of adam is incoherent and contradicts both the bible and the supposedly just, merciful and all loving nature of god.

Hi Christian people!

I would like to kindly ask a question from you.

If Jesus only spoke Aramaic as his main language, along with Greek and Hebrew, how can Jesus(The God) fairly judge inner thoughts of other humans(he created) from other parts of the world that spoke other languages(therefore think in other languages)?

Christians often argue that God did not create robots, and that we have the free and voluntary choice to either accept or reject him. If that's the case, it does not make sense for Christians to have historically needed to forcibly convert non-believers. In addition, unless you are living in a 3rd world country with no internet access, everyone has the free ability to learn about Christianity. If Christians argue that we are not forced to believe in God, then it wouldn't make sense for modern Christians to aggressively proselytize non-believers.