Thesis is the title.

—

Every single hour of every day, the vast majority of us entrusts our lives and well-being, and those of our friends and loved ones, to naturalism.

When we trust in the drugs we’re prescribed, the chemicals we use to clean our bodies and environments, the infrastructure that maintains public safety, the materials we use to shelter ourselves from the elements, the technology that makes communication and financial transactions work, the safety of the food we consume, et al., we’re placing our well-being and our very lives into the hands of naturalism.

Many of the aforementioned tools and technologies are established on a foundation of naturalistic principles that are debated in a religious context, but realistically nowhere outside of that. When we look to distinguish life from non-life, consciousness from unconsciousness, or understand the basic function and nature of the universe in any other context, we have faith that the principles of naturalism will accomplish that for us. Not religion.

When a researcher develops biometric and GPS technology that allows a smartwatch to track your whereabouts and vitals, they don’t rely on God’s goodness to ground it. They rely on atmospheric science and models of thermodynamics. When we launched the JWST to explore the cosmos, we built it using our knowledge optics and cosmology.

When we pass laws, we justify them with crime statistics, demographics, and our shared cultural values. Not the exclusive moral principles of any one particular religion. When a jury judges people in a court of law, they don’t rely on 500 unknown witnesses. They rely on DNA evidence credibly established through knowledge of the natural sciences.

When the theist criticizes naturalism, and claim it’s insufficient to answer questions like why is there something instead of nothing, why the universe reflects certain qualities, or why do we as humans value certain behaviors and moral principles, they toe a very fine line and make a special case for why they are warranted in selectively accepting naturalistic methods of inquiry in some areas but rejecting it for others.

Despite accepting vastly superior naturalistic principles and models in virtually every other aspect of life.

Now, I realize that many will make the objection that different ontologies exist, and that pragmatic naturalism and metaphysical naturalism are different things. That metaphysical naturalism is not palatable because they don’t believe that natural explanations can account for every aspect of existence & experience. Which is fine.

But theists still need to justify why specific questions are exclusively under the purview of religion, and not naturalism. And it can’t simply be because naturalism hasn’t answered them yet.

I keep seeing a particular argument from some Islamic apologists that homosexuality is wrong because it’s harmful to society or to the human population. Set aside the religious argument for a second, because that’s a separate (and at least internally coherent) position.

If you’re going to argue from harm, you have to apply the standard consistently. There’s no evidence they harm the population. Humans are not at risk of dying out because a minority of people aren’t partnering with the opposite sex. Gay people have existed in every society and population numbers are doing fine.

Whereas cousin marriage is permitted in Islamic law, and it’s common in many Muslim majority societies. Studies consistently show elevated risk of recessive genetic disorders in children of first cousins. The absolute risk increase is modest per child, but it compounds in communities where cousin marriage has been practiced for generations.

If you want to argue that the risk for any single couple is relatively small, and that adults should be free to make their own choices, fine. But that’s exactly the point. If “some elevated risk to offspring” isn’t enough to ban cousin marriage, then “harm to the population” certainly isn’t enough to condemn relationships that carry no such risk at all

If you want to be consistent, you have two options:

1. Drop the harm argument and embrace DCT. Just say “my religion prohibits it.”
2. Or if you want to keep the harm argument (perhaps if you feel DCT has negative implications, such as God allowing rape or murder) then apply it everywhere, which means prohibiting cousin marriage too

one example is surah 9: 1_14, 26 instead of that he could have said kill the traitors wherever you find them since their religion is irrelevant and could have said leave them alone if they stopped fighting you and became your brothers in humanity since them establishing prayer and becoming your brothers in Islam is irrelevant and could have said fight them if they broke their oaths since them insulting Islam is irrelevant and could have said and he punished the disbelievers (they got killed ) and this is the punishment of the traitors since being disbeliever is irrelevant and could have said except the peaceful people since keeping the treaty is irrelevant if you never had one or if yr a peaceful person in a country that has no treaty with the Islamic country

even if you believe the bad interpretation comes from hadith still he could have be more clear that Islam is Quran only no hadith needed by not saying verses that say obey Allah and obey his messenger which many understand it to be there are extra words and commandments other than the ones Allah gave in the Quran or could have said obey the messenger but all of his teachings are in the Quran anyway and could have explained in details clearly all the teachings how to do them like how much charity how to pray pilgrimage etc

I understand you will say I misunderstood the verses but my point is that the Quran could have made itself more clear so people don't use it to harm others but chose not to which means the Quran is also an intentional cause of the harm and is blamed for it

TL;DR: If you knew your family was being tortured eternally, you could never truly be happy in heaven. For you to be completely happy in heaven, God would have to alter your brain so much that “you” would cease to exist.

This argument is aimed at Christians and Muslims who believe that there is an afterlife with complete happiness (e.g., Revelation 21:4 promising no more mourning or crying) as well as an endless hell of conscious torture.

Humans value two key virtues - empathy and unconditional love. Many parents would sacrifice themselves for their children. Therefore, if a devoted Christian goes to heaven but their beloved atheist child/spouse is sent to hell, logically speaking there are only three options that would allow God to keep heaven blissful:

1. Erase your memory of the damned.
God removes from your memory those who are being tormented in Hell so you won’t feel bad. By doing this God changes your identity. A mother whose memories of her child have been erased is not the same person she was before. She lost her earthly identity.

2. Destroy your ability to empathize.
You still know your family/loved ones, but God alters your personality so you just don’t care how they’re suffering. Thomas Aquinas advocated for this (Summa Theologica, Suppl. Q94, Art. 1). He said that the blessed will rejoice in the punishments of the wicked to understand God’s justice. Essentially this would mean that people in heaven lose all sense of compassion – which they were instructed to demonstrate during their time on earth.

3. You retain both your empathy and memories, but are miserable.
You spend your entire existence grieving for your family/loved ones. In this case, heaven isn’t a place of complete joy and the scripture saying “the sorrow shall disappear” is untrue.

Theology of eternal reward and eternal punishment is contradictory. There is no way for God to create a heaven where His followers can be absolutely happy and also send their loved ones to hell for eternity. As such, God would need to destroy the two greatest parts of humanity - our capacity for unconditional love and our ability for empathy.

a Christian will say why do you follow a book that says to kill ex Muslims I mean sure that is evil but your book also says ex Christians will get in lake of fire so why is the first not ok but second ok?

or a Muslim will say your book is evil because it teaches to kill children in some stories in the old testament I mean ok your God literally creates kids cancer so God has the right to create cancer killing kids slowly with it but has no right to tell a man to kill them in a second?

or when Christians might say Muhammad married a child I mean ok but Many Christians historically married as 12 years old and church fathers priests pastors were totally ok because the bible doesn't explicitly condemn it even tho it was very common but the bible and church father and priests and pastors stayed silent about it for 1500 years or something

Yes, in the end I will show how one leads to the other.

Let's grant that omnipotence does not mean the ability to do the impossible, like creating a circle with corners.

1. So, omnipotence must mean the ability to do anything that is possible.

2. If we have free will, it is possible not to sin. Otherwise I don't have the free will to choose not to sin.

3. Thus, it's possible that everyone chooses not to sin.

4. Same with it being possible that everyone believes in God and lives happily ever after.

5. If God is omnipotent, and it is possible for people to not sin even with free will, then God has every ability to create a world with free will and without sin, where everyone goes to Heaven and lives happily ever after.

6. Since people do not believe, and people sin, either God is not omnipotent (thus couldn't create the possible world with free will and no sin), or he literally chose for sin and non-belief to exist (thus there is no free will).

Reminder that we're not talking about probabilities here. We're talking about a creator who can, IF he's omnipotent, accomplish anything that is possible. If it is impossible for us to all choose not to sin, then we do not have free will, as we are predestined to sin. If it is possible for us to all choose not to sin (which it would be, if we have free will), then an omnipotent God deliberately chose not to create that world, thus we are predestined to sin, thus no free will.

TL;DR: Apologists say 23:14 anticipated embryology because cartilage forms before muscle. But every classical tafsir understood ʿiẓām as bones, and no mufassir read it as cartilage. If the “cartilage” reading is true, then either the Prophet didn’t understand his own revelation or he let his Companions misunderstand it, and Allah chose a word He knew would mislead its audience for 1400 years.

1. THE CLAIM

ثُمَّ خَلَقْنَا ٱلنُّطْفَةَ عَلَقَةً فَخَلَقْنَا ٱلْعَلَقَةَ مُضْغَةً فَخَلَقْنَا ٱلْمُضْغَةَ عِظَٰمًا فَكَسَوْنَا ٱلْعِظَٰمَ لَحْمًا ثُمَّ أَنشَأْنَٰهُ خَلْقًا ءَاخَرَ

“Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot (ʿalaqa), then made the clot into a chewed lump (muḍgha), then made the lump into bones (ʿiẓām), then clothed the bones with flesh (laḥm), then produced it as another creation.” (23:14)

The apologetic argument states that modern embryology shows the skeleton forms as a cartilage model, and muscle develops around it. So the verse is “scientifically accurate,” if we read ʿiẓām as cartilage or “early skeletal structure.” Some versions add that bone cells appear before muscle cells.

I’ll look at this in three steps: what the verse’s earliest interpreters said, what embryology actually shows, and what follows if the apologetic reading is adopted

2. WHAT THE CLASSICAL TAFSIRS SAY

I went through the major tafsirs on this verse (all available at quran.com). None of them says or implies cartilage

3 points:

1. No mufassir mentions cartilage. The closest thing is Ibn Masud’s “bone and sinew,” and sinew isn’t cartilage.
2. They all describe the same sequence. The mudgha becomes bones, and flesh then covers them. Ibn Ashur says explicitly that this is the formation of “the human skeleton of bone and flesh.”
3. The modern claim appears only in the modern tafsir. Tantawi (20th century) quotes “some scholars” saying bone cells appear first and flesh cells only after the skeleton. That is a modern claim added to the tafsir, not something from the earlier tradition.

The same word is used in 2:259 (“Look at the bones, how We assemble them and then clothe them with flesh”), 36:78 (“Who will give life to bones when they have decayed?”) and 17:49. In these verses ʿiẓām plainly means ordinary hard bones, including bones that have rotted.

3. WHAT EMBRYOLOGY ACTUALLY SHOWS

Roughly (timing varies by source and by how you count):

• Around weeks 3-4, somites form and begin giving rise to muscle precursors (myotomes).
• Around weeks 4-5, the limb buds appear and mesenchymal cells condense.
• Around weeks 5-6, cartilage models appear. Muscle precursors migrate into the limbs at roughly the same time.
• Around weeks 6-8, the first ossification (true bone) begins.

Two problems for the verse:

Muscle precursors appear at about the same time as cartilage, or before bone. So “bones are formed, then clothed with flesh” is not a clean match for the actual developmental order. Skeleton and muscle develop in parallel from related mesenchymal and somite tissue. There is no flesh-lump stage that turns into bones. The embryo isn’t an undifferentiated piece of meat from which a skeleton later emerges. So even the “scientific” reading needs the word stretched and the sequence loosened. (I’m not an embryologist, so correct me if I have any timing wrong.)

4. "CAN IT POSSIBLY MEAN CARTILAGE?"

The verse uses ʿiẓām, the ordinary word for bone, which everywhere else in the Quran means hard bone (36:78, 17:49, 19:4). The claim that Arabic had no word for cartilage fails: ghuḍrūf is defined in the classical lexicons as “every soft bone” (Ibn ʿAbbād, al-Muḥīṭ fī l-Lugha), and it appears in a report describing the Prophet’s body (the Seal was “at the place of the ghuḍrūf of the shoulder”), so the language of his time already had a more precise term for exactly this tissue.

Even granting this, that definition makes cartilage a kind of ʿaẓm, so the word can stretch that far. But “can” is not “does,” and if Allah meant cartilage He chose the general word, knowing the Prophet, the Companions and every classical scholar would read it as hard bone, when a precise term existed and was in use. That is the real problem, and it leads into the dilemma of what the Prophet knew.

5. THE DILEMMA: WHAT DID THE PROPHET KNOW?

If the intended meaning of 23:14 is “cartilage,” then at the time of revelation:

A. The Prophet didn’t know. Then he recited, taught and passed on a verse whose intended meaning he didn’t grasp. By his own understanding, it meant bones.

B. The Prophet knew and said nothing. Then he knowingly left his Companions with a false understanding, despite 16:44 (“so that you may explain to the people what was revealed to them”).

If the Prophet’s understanding of revelation can diverge from its intended meaning, his explanations become unverifiable. Every tafsir that relies on his explanation rests on the assumption that what he understood is what God meant. Once you grant that this can fail, you can’t say where it stops. How do we know his explanation of any other verse isn’t another “bones, but really something else”?

The same goes for the Companions. Ibn Abbas is called the “interpreter of the Quran,” and he is quoted in the tafsirs on this very verse. If he and every classical mufassir missed the real meaning, on what basis do we trust their reading of the verses on law, theology, or the afterlife?

6. WHAT THIS MEANS FOR ALLAH’S CHOICES

Ibn Kathir, commenting on 26:195 (“in a clear Arabic language”), explains that God revealed the Quran “in perfect and eloquent Arabic, so that it may be quite clear, leaving no room for excuses and establishing clear proof, showing the straight path.” Take that at face value:

1. The Quran presents itself as clear to its first audience, in their language.
2. So the meaning the original audience understood is the meaning God intended. Clarity means the intended meaning is the one communicated.
3. The Prophet, the Companions and the classical scholars understood ʿiẓām as bones, a word the Quran uses for ordinary hard bone everywhere else.
4. Therefore the intended meaning is bones.

The apologist can only escape by saying God’s intended meaning was not what the audience understood, which contradicts 26:195 directly

Christians love to declare what is “sin,” but most never stop to ask the basic question: by what covenantal authority? If you claim Gentiles are not under Torah, then Torah cannot define Gentile sin. Yet Christians routinely condemn others with Torah while refusing its obligations for themselves. That is not holiness; it is selective moral appropriation. If Torah binds you, keep it. If Torah does not bind you, stop using it as a club. But the one thing you cannot do is reject the covenant and still wield its commands as universal law. What authority do Christians have to call anything a sin if they reject the covenant that defines sin in the first place. If Christians aren’t under Torah, then what authority do they have to declare Torah violations as sin.

A perfect being who is compassionate and loving cannot coexist with a perfect being who is jealous and terrifying.

The God of the Old Testament was not originally understood as the one universal God of Judaism and Christianity. He emerged from the polytheistic religious world of the ancient Near East, and his transformation into the supposedly unique creator of the universe was the result of centuries of theological evolution.

The claim that the Israelites had always worshipped the one and only God is contradicted by the very scriptures on which Judaism and Christianity rely.
Exodus 15:11 asks, “Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods?” Exodus 20:3 commands, “You shall have no other gods before me,” rather than stating that no other gods exist. Deuteronomy 10:17 calls Yahweh “God of gods and Lord of lords.” Most strikingly, the older textual tradition of Deuteronomy 32:8–9, preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls and reflected in the Septuagint, describes the Most High dividing the nations among the “sons of God,” with Yahweh receiving Israel as his own portion. Psalm 82:1 depicts God presiding over a divine assembly and judging among the gods.

These passages preserve the traces of a religious worldview in which Yahweh existed within a broader divine hierarchy.

The Israelites also worshipped other deities. Judges 10:6 explicitly lists the Baals, the Ashtoreths and the gods of neighbouring nations. First Kings 11:4–8 accuses Solomon of worshipping Ashtoreth, Chemosh and Milcom. Second Kings 21:3–7 describes Manasseh's worship of Baal, his installation of an Asherah image and his devotion to the heavenly host. Ezekiel 8:14–16 depicts women mourning Tammuz and men bowing to the sun in the Jerusalem temple precincts. Jeremiah 44:15–19 records Judeans defending their offerings to the Queen of Heaven and associating her worship with their prosperity. These are the Bible's own accounts of a population whose religious practices were far removed from the strict monotheistic ideal later attributed to its ancestors.

Archaeology reinforces this picture. Inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud, dating to the eighth century BCE, invoke “YHWH of Samaria” or “YHWH of Teman” alongside “his asherah.” An inscription from Khirbet el-Qom also mentions Yahweh and an asherah. Many scholars interpret this evidence as indicating that some Israelites associated Yahweh with the goddess Asherah, potentially as a divine consort. The exact meaning of asherah remains disputed, but the inscriptions make it impossible to dismiss the question as a mere invention of modern critics. They provide material evidence that Israelite religious practice could combine Yahweh worship with traditions associated with other divine figures.
The relationship between Yahweh and the older Canaanite high god El raises further questions. Genesis 14:18–22 identifies El Elyon, “God Most High,” with Abraham's God, while Exodus 6:2–3 distinguishes the patriarchal revelation as El Shaddai from the later revelation of the name Yahweh. Psalm 82 places God in a divine assembly, imagery comparable to the assembly of gods found in ancient Canaanite literature. The evidence points to a religious tradition that developed within its cultural environment, not one that descended into history as an already complete and unchanging monotheism.

The decisive transformation becomes particularly visible in the prophetic literature associated with the Babylonian Exile and its aftermath. Isaiah 44:6 declares, “Besides me there is no god,” while Isaiah 45:5 states, “I am the LORD, and there is no other.” These explicit assertions of exclusive monotheism contrast with older passages that acknowledge other gods or depict Yahweh among divine beings. The theological position had changed: a deity whose worship had competed with other cults was now proclaimed the sole God of the universe.

Judaism subsequently presented this developed conception of Yahweh as an eternal revelation, while Christianity inherited the Hebrew scriptures and built further theological claims around Jesus. But neither religion can prove the divine origin of its doctrines simply by appealing to texts produced and reinterpreted within the religious tradition whose authority they are supposed to establish.

Why should the eventual victor in an ancient religious struggle be presumed to possess the truth? Why should the gods of Egypt, Mesopotamia and Canaan be dismissed as human inventions, while Yahweh is exempted from the same historical scrutiny? The Bible provides evidence of changing beliefs, competing cults and the gradual assertion of exclusive monotheism. It does not independently demonstrate that this final theological position was revealed by the one true God.

The central problem is that Judaism and Christianity ask people to accept their own scriptures as proof of the unique divine authority of the traditions that produced them. Historically, however, those scriptures reveal the evolution of Israelite religion from within the polytheistic world of the ancient Near East. The triumph of biblical monotheism proves that one religious interpretation prevailed; it does not prove that its claims about the universe are true.

Judaism and Christianity therefore have no historically demonstrable basis for presenting their conception of God as an unchanged, uniquely revealed truth that humanity has always been obliged to recognise. Their scriptures establish the history of their beliefs, not the divine authority they claim for them.

My issue is that I've been rethinking my faith even though I've been a Christian since birth.

Context: Recently, I came across this video where a girl was SA'd when she was 4 years old by her neighbour. She stated that for months she cried out to God asking him/her to do something, yet nothing happened to the person who assaulted her which made her become an Atheist. When I checked the comments I saw people saying things like "God should stop planning", "Is this apart of Sky Daddy's plan?", etc. Which made me think, is god truly real? Take into consideration the Epstein Files, was it apart of God's plan when they did unspeakable things to those kids? Or even the Cornel 7, was it apart of God's plan for "Jane Doe" to get SA'd for hours?

But then we have to look at the Christian perspective and what we were taught as kids. There's the Bible that tells us what Jesus taught, his life, his miracles, and even how he was brought back from the dead. There's also Saints that did miracles and instances like "The Holy Guardian Angels of Ateneo de Manila" where an angel supposedly saved some students that were sitting outside from a falling wall that was caused by an earthquake.

So when we think about these things what are we supposed to believe? That all of these sins are apart of God's plan or that there simply is no God at all?

And how exactly is free will and an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being coexist with one another?

I consider myself a believer in God, but I’ve always felt that religion needs to evolve as time changes. Look at human history: we’ve fought countless wars over whose version of God is "right" and forced people into rigid boxes.

If an all-powerful, good God actually exists, what makes more sense? That He cares about spreading love, compassion, and people doing the right thing? Or that He demands brand loyalty, forced conversion, and strict compliance to rules written centuries ago?

The religion i am from is supposed to be a way of life, not a static rulebook. But for some time our people has blindly following it Even some time voluntary inforcing it ironically in our religious stories and scriptures, God and divine figures break social, moral, or ceremonial rules when a higher good demands it. Yet as followers, so many people get completely trapped in the form of tradition while forgetting its actual purpose.

Why are we so terrified of letting outdated customs evolve? Is it just comfort, or have we turned human traditions into an idol of their own?

My claim is that theism collapses into nihilism due to determinism and the ultimate moral justification of all things.

Presuppositions: An all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good God.

P1. Determinism. Every “choice” you make was already known by God and forcefully actualized by him.

J1. You must either believe your choices depend on God’s knowledge, or God’s knowledge depends on your choices. The latter one is problematic, so it immediately follows that you can only choose what God has actualized you to choose.

P2. Every evil in the world has a morally sufficient reason for it to occur

J2. This is the basic solution to POE. For every evil that occurs, there must be a morally sufficient reason that makes this evil ultimately and cosmically justified. If not, then you are saying that God created a world without ultimate and net moral sufficient reason to do so, which would make him not maximally good.

C. There is no reason to choose to prevent evils, as your choice (whatever it is) will be aligned with God’s knowledge, and all evil has morally sufficient reasons.

Whether you choose to be an advocate, a protector, a donor to charity, etc, or not, God already knows. and God has already chosen the most maximally good world and actualized everything with sufficient moral reason.

If you see a kid getting bullied, and you dont intervene, God already knew you wouldnt, and God already had a sufficiently good moral reason for allowing this bullying to happen. Who do you trust more, your moral reasons or God’s?

I know the first counterargument is “but God calls me to intervene, if I choose to intervene its also part of God’s plan and part of the ultimate moral justification” Yes, this is true.

But you could also just not. Then its also part of Gods plan and will. Whatever you choose is technically the most morally sufficient thing, because if you were able to defy this ultimate moral sufficiency, that would mean you were able to thwart or defy God, which is not possible.

Then this simply collapses into nihilism.

The only motive you should really have, is securing your own salvation (through a heaven/hell salvation lens). Do what you need to do to be saved, but outside of that, being a fearless advocate or protector of others, is really pointless. because you can just choose not to, and both will have exactly the same moral sufficient reason in the end.

Only under atheism (or theism with non-determinism or non-benevolent God) is there actually a real reason to prevent Evil. Only under these frameworks, preventing evil actually can result in better moral justice.

It is simply impossible to actually alter the ultimate moral justification in the universe as a human. Whatever you do, you’re not actually helping or hurting it ultimately. God could only actualize a perfectly maximal world with sufficient moral reason for all evils. You will not and can not do anything to change or improve that.

Being an atheist means not believing in God who created us, but believing that everything is an accident, which is a problem. There is more proof that God exists than that He doesn't exist. As an atheist, you have a higher risk of getting into depression, and you will have more unanswered questions than answered ones.

: How does the Big Bang theory make sense, but not God? How can you believe more in Darwin's theory of evolution and that you are a monkey, but not that you were created by an all-knowing God? It is surprising that many say they don't believe in God because there is no evidence, yet the same people believe they are monkeys. This is hilarious.

Then, when you argue with an atheist about why you believe in God and try to also debate from an atheist's perspective, most of them say, "And you can't talk about my beliefs because I believe in nothing." There is nothing called "I believe in nothing" because either you believe in God, which is a belief, or you don't believe in God, which is also a belief.

Tell me, then, why are we here?

Why are there a lot of bad things happening in life?

What will happen after all this?

Note: I only respond to respectful comments—excited to hear from you!

The claim that love requires the possibility of rejecting God assumes a particular conception of meaningful freedom, but the value and necessity of that conception require justification.

Our understanding of freedom is shaped by the conditions of our present reality, in which desires can cause conflict and suffering occurs. We even associate freedom with the ability to act against our own well-being. But these associations do not establish that every conceivable reality must preserve the same possibilities in order for its inhabitants to exercise meaningful agency. A reality fundamentally grounded in love, joy, and peace does not eliminate individuality or differences in preference. Rather, these differences could exist within a context that does not make suffering, hostility, or the fundamental undermining of well-being necessary features of existence.

Every reality would have constitutive conditions, including the fundamental characteristics of its inhabitants and the possibilities available to them. A reality grounded in love, joy, and peace would constitute a different context for agency, not necessarily a coercive imposition upon it.

There is also the assumption that God and human nature are fundamentally distinct. Alternatively, God could be understood as the ground of reality itself, or as inseparable from the reality in which we exist, rather than as an entirely separate being imposing external demands upon us.

This changes the framing of freedom and coercion. If the divine is foundational to our own nature and existence, alignment with God need not be analogous to submitting to an external authority. A reality grounded in love, joy, and peace could simply constitute a different context in which our nature and agency operate.

There is a fundamental difference between forcing someone to love and creating conditions in which love is a natural expression of their nature. Likewise, the inability to experience a particular destructive desire does not, by itself, entail the absence of meaningful agency. A person could still deliberate, form intentions, make choices, develop relationships, and act voluntarily without possessing the capacity to choose everything conceivable. Love can be understood both as a state of intention and as a state of experience. Neither inherently depends on the particular conditions of our earthly reality to be meaningful.

If God determines the fundamental conditions of reality and the nature of conscious beings, then the possibility of a reality in which meaningful agency exists without eternal ruin must be addressed rather than dismissed by appealing to freedom.

A reality fundamentally grounded in love, joy, and peace does not, merely by virtue of those qualities, entail coercion or forced reciprocation. It entails a different context in which agency and experience occur. To establish that such a reality would compromise meaningful freedom, one must explain precisely what is lost, why that loss matters (even at the expense of lasting love, joy and peace), and why no alternative design could preserve that value without permitting eternal suffering or the permanent destruction of the individual.

Kill your own child because a voice (god) tells you to do that? Can you just imagine this situation in real life today? Imagine your neighbour would kill his son and say it was a test from god to see if I fear him and be loyal.

I don’t understand how this storys are not seen as insane but as heroic, even back then.

I've been struggling with a philosophical question for a long time, and I'd genuinely like to hear serious perspectives on it, whether religious, philosophical, or atheistic.

Why are human beings born with such radically unequal capacities and possibilities?

Some people are born with Down syndrome, profound intellectual disabilities, severe congenital conditions, or other limitations that can significantly affect what they are able to understand, experience, and achieve. Others are born with extraordinary intellectual abilities, physical health, and opportunities for development. Deafness, blindenss, down syndrome, and other horrible things that occure during birth and during development. If this happend once in a billion to me it would still be unfair.

I can accept human evil as a responsibilitu of humans but struggle with severe disabilities present from birth or arising in early development. People who are denied possibilities through no fault of their own?

What troubles me is that some people may never possess the capacities necessary to pursue many of these goods, through no fault of their own. Their lives may still contain love, happiness, and meaningful experiences, but that doesn't automatically erase the limitations or opportunities they never had.

And the problem seems even more troubling when we consider how society treats vulnerable people. Throughout history, disabled people have sometimes been abandoned, excluded, or ridiculed. Even today, people share videos of disabled individuals for entertainment and mockery. Someone can be born with limitations they never chose and then face contempt because of those very limitations.

I'm not looking for the usual reassurance that disabled people can be happy, that everyone has different strengths, or that everything happens for a reason. Those statements may contain some truth, but they don't fully address the underlying questions.

I'm looking for a genuine reconciliation, if one exists. Are there arguments that address it directly, rather than simply explaining suffering in general?

I have been troubled by this problem since my childhood. Also, i should probably make it clear that i dont personally know or interact with anyone disabled in my day to day life. I am just curious about this problem. I feel like this is such a core philossophical problem that is not examined enough and undermines many phillosophies and faith.

This is also why the question troubles me so deeply on a personal and intellectual level. It seems to challenge the foundations of many philosophies that I otherwise find meaningful.

Thinkers such as Nietzsche place enormous emphasis on self-overcoming, the cultivation of one's capacities, the affirmation of life, and the possibility of becoming something greater than one currently is. Schopenhauer explores suffering, the will, and the possibility of compassion, while Jung examines the psyche, individuation, and the search for psychological wholeness. Many other philosophers, religious thinkers, and traditions likewise encourage us to cultivate reason, pursue truth, develop our character, or discover meaning through our experiences.

I find these ideas compelling, and I personally strive toward intellectual and spiritual development. I regard philosophy, music, literature, and the cultivation of the mind as some of the most valuable possibilities of human existence.

But I keep returning to a question that seems to undermine these ideals at their foundations: what do these philosophies mean for people who, through no fault of their own, lack the capacities required to pursue the forms of development they celebrate?

Self-overcoming presupposes something that can be overcome. Intellectual cultivation presupposes capacities that can be cultivated. Philosophical reflection presupposes some ability to reflect. Even the ability to search for meaning, interpret one's suffering, or consciously affirm life cannot be assumed to be equally available to everyone.

You can answer, by any perspective, religious or non religious. you want.

P.S. Im sorry if my post is too long and complicated, im also not native english speaker so there might be typos and unclear point in the text.

According to the Gospel of Mathew,  16:15–19, Jesus said that Peter’s statement that he is “the Son of the living God” is the foundation of the church. He says that upon this "rock" the Church will be built and bestows upon Peter the "keys of the Kingdom of Heaven." 

But just five verses later in Matthew 16:23, Jesus turns around and calls Peter “Satan” because Peter became a stumbling block to God’s plan.

How can the very person who spoke the words that form the foundation of the church be called Satan?

Do Muslims really believe I'm the existence of Jesus?

If Jesus is a messenger if Allah as claims by Muslims, the Christianity is fales and anything and everything introduced by it too. So now, when bible is not the actual mesge of the god, how do Muslims refer and acknowledge only the clause required to acknowledge the existence of Allah, the life story of Jesus and his capabilities and how he died?

A Christian has faith that Christianity is true. A Muslim has faith that Islam is true. Both can be equally sincere and convinced that they’re right.

But if one of them is wrong, their faith clearly didn’t help them find the truth.

So why do religious people treat faith as a virtue when it can lead someone to believe something completely false?

What makes your faith different from someone else’s besides the fact that you believe yours is right?

The argument goes something like "God had to make evil in order to give us free will." Yet they are over looking on crucial detail that counters that idea.

There is no evil in heaven yet it seems that people still seem to have free will there. So why can it happen there yet not here?

If your answer is well god takes away their ability or wants to sin then you are proving the point that an all power god could have created a world without evil yet chose not to.

Christian interpret the suffering servant passages, especially Isaiah 53, as about the messiah and more specifically Jesus. But this is probably not what the author of Second Isaiah meant when he wrote these passages.

Is there a Second Isaiah?

First Isaiah is seen as made up of chapters 1-39 and, although generally believed to have been interpolated, possibly holds some of the original prophecies of Isaiah, who is said to have prophesied during the Assyrian crisis. Second Isaiah is made up of chapters 40-55 and was composed during the Babylonian exile which means it could not be composed by the prophet Isaiah.

I'll give a few reasons why Second Isaiah is likely written later and by someone different from First Isaiah’s author.

One, chapter 40 presupposes the Babylonain exile has already happned and uses language associated with the time period of the exile.

Isaiah 40:1-2 -

“Comfort, O comfort my people,
says your God.
Speak tenderly to Jerusalem,
and cry to her
that she has served her term,
that her penalty is paid,
that she has received from the Lord’s hand
double for her sins.”

The chapter begins by offering comfort as Jerusalem has paid her penalty and received punishment double for her sins. This is not written as a prophecy of what will happen but something that has already happned. And the language of Jerusalem paying double is also found in Jeremiah 16:18,

“And I will doubly repay their iniquity and their sin because they have polluted my land with the carcasses of their detestable idols and have filled my inheritance with their abominations.”

But this actually does give it as a prophecy of what will happen. To make this case even stronger, nowhere in Second Isaiah is the prophet Isaiah explicitly giving prophecy like in First Isaiah. In First Isaiah you hear Isaiah giving prophecy but this ends at chapter 40 and Isaiah is not mentioned anywhere in Second Isaiah nor in Third Isaiah (chapters 56-66).

Given these differences in writing and the presupposition of the Babylonian exile, it is more likely these are written by different authors.

Isaiah 53 and the suffering servant identity

Isaiah 55:3 -

“Incline your ear, and come to me;
listen, so that you may live.
I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David.”

Here the author is taking the covenant made with David, that he would have a descendant on the throne forever (2 Sam 7), and giving it to the nation. It democratizes the kingship from one person to the nation. Adding supprt to this is that Second Isaiah never explicitly mentions the messiah unlike First Isaiah which clearly does. Second Isaiah reinterprets the Davidic covenant in light of the exile and the destruction of the Davidic line, as this loss causes significant problems for Judah theologically (see Psalms 89).

So what is Isaiah 53 and, to a greater extent, the suffering servant passages about? There's been different theories but I'll argue it's about the righteous of Israel. The ones who will be the light of the world and bring Jacob back to God. Which makes sense because these are things associated with the Messiah and Second Isaiah has democratized it, so the righteous of Israel doing these things is what you'd expect.

Conclusion

The Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53 and the suffering servant is likely not what the author originally intended and reading these passages as about the Messiah are in contradiction to the theological views of the author(s) of Second Isaiah.

Thesis is the title, and a basic premise is that any belief justified with fallacious thinking should make us uncomfortable.

—

A piggybacking fallacy occurs when evidence supporting one proposition is treated as sufficient justification for a related but distinct proposition, even though the evidence does not adequately support the additional conclusion and no sufficient independent justification is provided.

When attempting to justify a wide range of beliefs, theists commit this fallacy in a number of ways. For the purpose of this post, I would like to focus on a few examples.

—

COSMIC EXPANSION:

Established Position: The basic components that comprise our cosmic habitat began expanding from a hot-dense state.

Piggybacking Claim: This process was also initiated by God.

—

FINE TUNING:

Established Position: The fundamental physical parameters that define our cosmic habitat are compatible with the emergence of complex structures and, ultimately, life.

Piggybacked Claim: The constants are this way because God designed them to accommodate life.

—

THE ORIGINS OF LIFE:

Established Position: Life is a natural consequence of physical and chemical processes consistent with the second law of thermodynamics and its emergence is understood as a thermodynamically permissible process in which ordered biological systems arise through energy dissipation in open systems.

Piggybacked Claim: God is also responsible for it.

—

HUMAN MORALITY:

Established Position: Morals are a subset of social practice, that evolved to facilitate social-cohesion and help groups hold free-riders accountable for the types of behavior that erode the overall health and longevity of their culture or society, and individuals within it.

Piggybacked Claim: Morals are also an important part of God’s plan for us.

—

GENERAL HISTORY:

Established Position: The historical record is established when competing explanations are viewed in the context of independent evidence, with the strength of the record proportionate to the evidence supporting it.

Piggybacked Claim: Religious miracles are also historical events.

—

AFTERLIFE:

Established Position: Living things depend on biological processes and are distinguished from non-living things by the animated processes of organic chemistry.

Piggybacked Claim: Humans also continue lived processes after the aforementioned processes stop.

—

SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCES:

Established Position: Spiritual experiences are a result of biological processes arising from identifiable states.

Piggybacked Claim: These experiences are also due to a connection with God.

—

THE EXISTENCE OF MY PARTICULAR RELIGION:

Established Position: Prosocial religions culturally evolved as belief systems and rituals that promoted cooperation, social cohesion, and group survival.

Piggybacked Claim: My religion is also a result of God’s revelation and interactions with mankind.

—

IDENTIFYING TRUTH OR PRODUCING ACCURATE MODELS:

Established Position: Logic and math can identify true claims, and scientific methodology can accurately model reality.

Piggybacked Claim: Religion can also produce truth and accurately model reality.

—

References available by request.