Preamble:

I have been focusing on what I considered the "foundational story" of Christianity, and I came up with the "Fall" of mankind as it's often called.. the story of Adam and Eve in the garden.

It's not the first story.. there was the creation of the universe before the garden story.

I picked the one that I liked the best.. the one that deeply resonates with most Christians, because without the fall, there would be no need for the crucifixion of Jesus, or his resurrection.. which a lot of Christians tell me is the central story.. the foundational story.

Im going to switch to the crucifixion here..

Today, I'm focusing on Matthew 26:39

“O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”

It's clear to me that Jesus would have willed to not be crucified... to not die... but that nevertheless, he chose obedience over his own free will.

He gave up his free will I guess "freely"... ?
Was he free ?

God only knows.
Again, the bible doesn't explain if Jesus had free will nor if his "Father" had any.

In fact, the bible never once mentions the term "free will".

Here is my argument:

P1. Jesus expresses a desire to avoid crucifixion (Matthew 26:39).

P2. Jesus voluntarily submits his will to the Father’s contrary will.

C. Therefore, Jesus chooses obedience over exercising his own free will.

i got a person arguing with me why humans can't create humans without (sx ) he says that it is exclusive to god and it is proof of god, like look at the change in medical filed we can save a dying person to an extent today what will be that extent in future , yes we are effectively increasing the extent we can save a person ,cloning ' ivf all of that have been here for a while and many others as well .

But the core problem is not if God exist or not , our words and statements and language is one of em the restrictions . it's not exactly the problem but it is a wall for us to get to an answer and furthermore we have yet to discover like god or we have yet to define the word or concept , . a deeply religious person with a Brain can say most of the religious text are just moral example for us and keep the cycle going or others according to each religions , and things that have been designed for human emotions . And deny all underlying wrong parts of religious texts in return it will face intense scrutiny too .

And an atheist or agnostic as iam , can debate that why is he or that doing that the reason why is he /that doing that why does he / that need this is he/that getting enjoyment for this or what if there's an all powerful entity, we actually question the reason for our existence. if this still is rooted on the belief that God exist he can argue that we are his creation , children , or slaves according to religion, that brings up the question is he morally grey, and In which does morality apply to God? .in this life most people enjoy life many regret it as much as they could and those who suffer meaningfully may have a chance of getting out of pain temporarily then the source of their pain changes and that keeps them engaged but contradictions are present

not generally there's contradiction in every statement I mentioned above and others as well , so you can argue that why an all powerful god did not created the world without evil and all why did he not create a world that can SUSTAIN Utopia , why did he not give us that then you can argue what is the problem with our current life isn't it enjoyable or satisfying but when we add reincarnations and karma to the table the question goes one level higher , so so in utopia logic

Within the underlying fabric if he created a world that can sustain Utopia (we ) as we currently are will be will less slaves or robotic like but that's where the weakness of language comes , if I try to explain this scenario with our logic it's becomes complex and too long and everything I state will have its own contradiction so

I THINK the problem of god and beliefs cannot be solved by languages more like( 3D or 4D) hyperbole like an intertwined explanation that connects and ends everything like then comes the question should the answer be perfect or not , wall of language becoming clear 😂 ,,

And Note the point As I mentioned many times all these are subject to contradictions and arguments.

And This is merely my view some of it put into words many wrong points and etc ..

At the end of day Does it matter if we're being controlled or not my question to my fellows

So I'm a Hindu and Atheist. I was completely against religion because I witnessed more negatives than positive impacts of any religion. I recently started reading Marx and at first I thought he too was against religion but no I was wrong. He says that the elite "uses" religion to keep the working class from gaining class conscience (or at least that was what I've comprehended from engaging in more discussions with Marxists). And in one such discussion a comrade brought up how Christianity has socialist qualities, so I was curious that if there are any political compass of religions which accurately depicts a religion's stand on the political spectrum. I press on the word "accurate" because many would make such political compasses without completely reading and understanding the religions. And also it would be better if the political compass also has valid points attached to it to argue why a religion is given specific place on the spectrum. But it doesn't mean that there can be only one accurate representation, we can have as many charts as the people who really has knowledge (academic etc) about the subject we are talking about so we can compare them and have a basic Idea and discussion which would help people understand new perspectives (It's better than people with surface level knowledge doing the representation)

I'm separating religious texts from religious people here. Like Buddhism as a religion is non problematic in most of the aspects, that's what the religious texts say. But Buddhists and practice of buddhism varies as you've mentioned. Like the buddhists in sri lanka literally supports genocide. It wasn't because of buddha said so, it's because of ethnonationalism, the geography etc.

Political compass of religions and Politcal compass of religious people are different in my perspective

We all have one life and it's not possible to learn everything by oneself, but it's kinda possible when knowledge is shared between people. And I hope people who have given most of their lifetime to study religion would share their knowledge with us in this case which would be a lot useful. Sorry If I've used the wrong flair I can't able to comprehend which suits best for my post

I don’t know if God exists. And if it does, I don’t know whether it exists outside us or within us.
But I’ve wondered if God began with a deeply human need.
When we’re lost, scared, and confused, it’s hard to trust ourselves. Sometimes, our own choices are what brought us there.
So we find something beyond ourselves to trust. A stone, a sculpture, a painting. Something to which we can surrender our fears, doubts, conflicts, and hopes.
Something we believe will guide us, listen without judgment, or take our side even when we feel we’ve failed ourselves.
And perhaps there’s something beautiful about placing our trust in an entity made of the same stardust as us.
Maybe God isn’t just about what exists in the universe. Maybe it’s also about what humans need to keep going in it.

If God exists, then there is no unnecessary suffering.

God exists.

Therefore, there is no unnecessary suffering.

Hi all! I just wanted to showcase a really primitive case for god I have developed for god as an ninth grader:

"If God does not exist, all is permitted" - Fyodor Dostoevsky, The brothers Karamazov

I identify as an Agnostic Theist.

The above given quote serves as the foundation for my main argument, though I would slightly like alter the initial meaning. Dostoevsky meant 'all is permitted', in a legal sense, but I would also like to add to its implication life losing any meaning whatsoever and the Universe, with all its intrinsic beauty, ultimately being but a coincidence.

My version of god is in no direct way a part of any religion, though it can be considered as an amalgamation of Brahman in Advaita Vedanta, The Holy Spirit in Christianity, mixed with some Deist beliefs.

I define god as mixed with the very fabric of reality and consciousness itself, with no form, nor shape. I believe in a Universe in which, god, has not written the laws of the universe, but rather is the laws of the universe.

I would also second William Lane Craig's and Albert Einstein's teleological argument that a god explains the 'uncanny' perfection with which Mathematics explains the processes of the universe.

As an Agnostic, I agree with Pascal's Wager argument for god in which he states: 'If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.'

Lastly, I would like to end with the following quote:

"Behold, we know not anything;
I can but trust that good shall fall
At last far off at last, to all,
And every winter change to spring." - Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Memoriam

Some remarks:

1). I know Pascal's Wager has a lot of counter-arguments but I wanted to include it as its something I thought of when I was even younger!

2). Keep in mind that this is in a very basic state, I request some of you to please help me with constructive criticism so that I can improve upon it!

Thank you!

Imagination or Certainty?

Hi me again

Hello! Recently I have been diving more into what to label my beliefs as, since I've been identifying myself as an agnostic for quite some time now. My beliefs now are pretty similar to agnosticism, if not extremely close, but I feel like there's more to my beliefs than just "we don't know". I have recently instead been saying, "my belief is possibility." By this I mean that everything, every theory, every belief system, could or could possibly not be true. Christianity's ideas could be the truth, but they might also not be. There could be absolutely no higher being whatsoever, or maybe there is. We as humans with the forms that we hold now cannot comprehend what the actual "truth" is. Everything could be true, false, or a third option that we, once again, cannot even begin to comprehend.

So overall, I feel like there might be a better term or way to describe/base my belief system off of rather than just saying I'm agnostic, because to me it runs deeper than that. When I think of agnosticism, I think of "we just don't know", but with how I think, it's more so "we don't know, but there are endless possibilities". I might also just be stretching and its really just that I'm looking deeper into it than others might, but I don't know for sure. Thanks!

I am learning about metaphysics in a philosophy class and we are debating why things are the way they are in the world.

Given the great amount of suffering in the world due to things like war, disease, and inequalities, I would think we surely do not live in the best of all possible worlds.
However, God, the supposed creator of the universe, is thought to be an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good being, so why would He create a world that is not the best one possible?
It can be argued that if there is evil in the world and thus this is not the best of all possible worlds, then God is not all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. This is the Problem of Evil.
What if it is not God, but humans that create evil? I recently came across this point of view while reading Rousseau 's response to Voltaire’s “Poem on the Lisbon Disaster”. While Voltaire’s poem expresses his frustration on how innocent people died in a huge earthquake in Lisbon and how God could have made a world in which this didn’t happen, Rousseau believed that it was the humans’ fault that they suffered. It was the humans who built the tall buildings that crumbled and the humans who ran back into their homes to grab belongings and therefore could not flee the disaster quick enough to survive.
Rousseau additionally argues that pain and suffering is just a part of life. In order to exist, one must pay the price of suffering occasionally, yet one can still find pleasure in life.
Would a world without suffering be better? What is God's role in human suffering? And finally, do we live in the best possible world?

I would love to know other people’s perspectives and discuss them since these questions are so fascinating to me!

Also, if anyone has any reading or film recommendations on these topics, please share them :)

I discovered this new argument that seems to supplement the traditional skeptical theism, I can't verify yet the author. I run the argument and it talks about answering moral paralysis, consequentialist gap, and the EPOE-HI. Here is the DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.23588276

It is entitled: The Argument from the Non-Uniformity of Causal Effects.

LINK: https://zenodo.org/records/23588276

If God exists and God is perfect and fair, why do innocent people still have to suffer?

Recently, I read Voltaire's Poem on the Lisbon Disaster and Rousseau's Letter to Voltaire, and these readings made me think about this question. I personally agree more with Voltaire's idea. Voltaire questions whether the suffering of innocent people, including children who died in the Lisbon earthquake, can simply be explained as God's punishment or by saying that "all is well."

I had a similar question. If God hates sin and punishes people who do wrong, I do not understand why innocent children or people who only made small mistakes have to experience such great suffering.

On the other hand, Rousseau argues that not all of the damage from disasters should be blamed on God or nature. For example, he says that the damage in Lisbon became worse because people lived closely together and built tall buildings. I understand this point because human choices can make the results of a disaster worse. However, I still have one question. Even if human choices made the disaster worse, does this fully explain the suffering of innocent people? Also, if people can make immoral choices and not receive enough punishment, while people who make moral choices can still suffer, why should people choose to act morally?

After reading these texts, I still find it difficult to believe that we live in the best possible world.

If God exists and is perfectly good and powerful, how would you explain the suffering of innocent people? Do you agree more with Rousseau that human choices are an important cause, or with Voltaire that this suffering creates a serious problem for the idea that "all is well"?

Free will - but God knows.

As an Indian, living life starts with struggles. I never thought about this topic a lot, but I really want to make my opinion, which I think is biased and may be helpful with science and quantum philosophers...

I really just stepped off my exam studies because it's my first day on Reddit (btw, many adult jokes are here). I do study a lot. I'm looking to study physics, and I'm still trapped in this paradox of being new to it. I'm just throwing out paragraphs of life instead of my topic...

So, as we Indians believe gods are eternal and just praise the hell out of them, don't you think these praises are related to atoms? Eternal, all-knowing, whole world is him... right? You got it, it's really that atoms are God. I still think it's just a coincidence.

But in another scenario, we, as 3-dimensional beings, draw 2-dimensional beings... We can relate it to 4th-dimensional beings too...

As per our religion, God comes down as a costume (roop) to balance or to finish evilness. Just think harder: what if God is a 4th-dimensional being making costumes to help out in the story of 3-dimensional us? What if God lives in the 4th dimension but makes 3-dimensional beings to clear the evilness and end the story...

As the 4th dimension is time, he controls time and makes the story repeat again in a different way... because he can control everything...

Let me know your thoughts on it?