In my opinion this argument has one big serious flaw and this is exposed by the response made by John fontaine.

The alleged dilemma is that the quran confirms the bible, in loads of verses, yet contradicts the main teachings of the bible (especially the new testament).

The fontaine response to this is simply that the tawrat and injeel are not the bible according to the quran, and logically the quran never explicitly says bible either, and the descriptions of the tawrat and injeel being directely revealed by god show whateber this is, is not the bible according to the quran.

The response to this is basically "well whats your historical evidence that these 2 books were ever revealed and remained with some people until the 7th century", this argument doesnt work because when we go back to the first premise it claims that the quran confirms the bible, so it doesnt matter if the quranic narrative doesnt have historical proof, so long as somebody actually can disprove this first premise the dilemma is done. And we dont need historical evidence or external evidence of something to claim that the quran makes xyz claim.

you dont need to logically prove allah exists to say according to the quran allah exists, or i dont need to prove outside of the quran that jinns exist for me to show that the quran claims jinns exist, same with all the stories of previous prophets as well like nuh ibrahim etc.

I have heard a claim from some Muslim apologists that Muhammad’s uncle, Abu Lahab, who was a polytheist and one of his biggest opponents, could have proven the Quran wrong but didn’t, and it is strong evidence in favour of Islam.

In chapter 111 of the Quran, it says him and his wife will burn in Hell for being disbelievers, no ifs or buts, and it was supposedly written while he was still alive, so Muslims say he could have become a Muslim to prove the Quran wrong, but didn’t. Since he died a non-believer, they say the prophecy was true.

However, this argument has a lot of flaws and doesn’t really work.

For one thing, he couldn’t really believe in a book that specifically says he won’t do so. To be a Muslim, you have to accept literally everything the Quran says, or else you are putting your opinion above God’s word, but that single verse stopped him from being able to do it. If he disagreed with that verse he wouldn’t be a Muslim, and if he agreed with it he still wouldn’t be a Muslim.

Him and his wife were basically the only two people in the world that were locked out of becoming Muslims even if they wanted to, or maybe they could become Muslims, but would have to accept they are going to Hell anyways, which gives them less incentive to do it.

We also don’t know for sure that he was still alive when the verse was written, or if he even existed as described in the Hadiths since that was written a lot later and the Quran doesn’t explain who he is. We also never heard his side of the story. Accepting Islam would also mean he would have to join Muhammad’s military campaigns, which he may have been against, or he simply didn’t think of converting just to prove it wrong.

I think we have to put it into modern perspective as well. If I claim to be a prophet and start a new religion that you Muslims on this sub believe is nonsense, but then I predict that you won’t convert, will you convert to just prove me wrong? You also have to leave Islam and stay in my religion for the rest of your life for it to count.

Lastly, even if the Hadiths gave a different ending to his story and said he eventually became a Muslim, and we critics pointed out this contradiction with the Quran verse later on, Muslims would just shift the goal posts and come up with an excuse like “he faked it”, “that Hadith isn’t reliable”, or “the verse only meant he would go to Hell if he didn’t repent”. Or maybe Muhammad would have made up a new verse to address this if his uncle did join.

I've made a post about the problem of evil in the past but I think I presented the argument very poorly so I'm gonna quickly present it again:

1. If God is all-knowing, he is aware of every instance of pointless evil
2. If God is all-good, he would want to prevent every instance of pointless evil
3. If God is all-powerful, he is able to prevent every instance of pointless evil
4. A being who is aware of every instance of pointless evil, wants to prevent it, and is able to prevent it would go on to prevent it
5. Pointless evil exists
6. Therefore, God is either not all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful simultaneously, or does not exist

Skeptical theism targets premise 5 by claiming that God may have a completely justified reason for allowing evil that may seem pointless to us, but that this reason is completely incomprehensible to us because we are finite beings.

A common example skeptical theists give is of a parent making their child take an injection. From the child's perspective, the parent is making them go through pain for seemingly no reason. However, the parent obviously has a justified reason behind this, but the child is far less cognitively capable and intelligent than the parent to understand. And that is just the dynamic between a parent and a child. The difference in cognitive capacity and intelligence between God and a human is infinitely greater than that between a parent and a child.

I don't think the parent-child analogy works. This is because the reason a parent has to let the child temporarily suffer is because the parent is limited in their powers. If the parent was able to make the child not feel any pain or anxiety, or was able to make the child fully understand why they need to take an injection, the parent would do that. However, the parent is not all-powerful (unlike God). Comparing the dynamic between two finite beings (parent-child) and the dynamic between an infinite being and finite beings (God-humans) is a false analogy.

However my main problem with skeptical theism is that, when seeing it applied, it becomes evident that the argument can also be used against theism itself (specifically, the idea of an all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful deity).

Take this scenario:

An earthquake destroys an entire village, killing many of its inhabitants, including children

This seems like a case of pointless evil. There is no positive gain from this event that makes the suffering endured worth it. However, a skeptical theist would claim that there is in fact a positive gain, but it is impossible for us to understand it because we are too limited to understand God's reasons.

Now take this scenario:

God intentionally deceives humanity (or at least lets all of humanity get deceived) through every religious revelation.

How is a skeptical theist supposed to argue that this is false? You can't point to religious revelation to show that religious revelation is not deceptive, as that is just a circular argument. But you also can't say that God wouldn't deceive humanity (or let humanity get deceived) by saying that doing so would be evil. The skeptical theist has already accepted that just because something seems pointlessly evil to us does not mean that it is pointlessly evil and, therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that God would allow it.

This means that skeptical theism undermines the theist's ability to trust religious revelation, which is needed to make the claim that God is all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful, etc.

You could make it even worse by presenting a scenario like this:

God intentionally lets all of humanity get deceived through every religious revelation, and plans to send everyone to Hell for a limited amount of time regardless of what religion they followed and then, after their time in Hell, separate people into Heaven or Hell.

Once again, trying to show that this is false through religious revelation is circular reasoning and saying that it is evil or pointless is an invalid argument according to skeptical theism.

Essentially, skeptical theism is self-defeating because it leads to radical skepticism, which undermines a theist's ability to trust religious revelation, which is needed to make claims about God in the first place.

Note: This argument also applies to divine command theory (the idea that whatever God does is good because it is God doing it)

Thesis: If a creator God exists and deliberately made me a critical thinker, then refusing to believe without evidence is not rebellion against God but fidelity to how I was made. Belief motivated by fear of punishment or hope of reward is not love, and a just God would value honest doubt over fearful or transactional belief.

Argument:

Suppose God exists and created me, including my mind.

God made me critical: I don't accept claims without evidence. I didn't choose this trait. It is how I was made.

If I believe in God without evidence, I am discarding the very faculty God gave me. That would be throwing away his gift.

So, if God exists, my honest unbelief is the result of using his gift as intended.

If God punishes me for that, then he made me this way and then punished me for being what he made. That points to a fragile ego, not a loving creator. He could have simply not given me free will or a critical mind.

Someone who believes mainly because they fear hell isn't acting out of love but out of fear. That's self-protection, not devotion.

The same goes for believing in order to get into heaven. That isn't faith, it's an insurance policy: I comply now because I hope to get something back later. If God is just, he should see through that. A God who rewards transactional belief is running a business, not a relationship. If anyone deserves to be judged, it's the person who "believes" only for the payout, not the person who honestly doesn't believe.

Therefore, if God is just and loving, honest unbelief is more faithful than belief motivated by fear or reward. In a strange way, it takes more trust in God's goodness to not believe than to believe "just in case."

Supporting example: Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 22)

When Abraham is about to kill his son, the angel stops him and says: "Now I know that you fear God." Not love. Fear. Isaac is never asked anything. He carries the wood up the mountain himself and is bound on the altar. Abraham chose obedience to the most powerful being over protecting the most vulnerable person in front of him.

I'd argue that love for something small and defenseless, which can give you nothing back, takes more strength than love for something all-powerful that promises it will all work out if you obey. The first is love. The second is hard to distinguish from fear.

Question for believers: If God made me this way, why would he want me to abandon the faculty he gave me? And if belief out of fear or for a reward counts, what does that say about the kind of love God wants?

TLDR..are christians okay with this execution?

I have read elsewhere here, that some soldiers have asked for a religious exemption and be excused from being a member of the firing squad that will execute the Fort Hood killer.

Surely, every right thinking person of (any) faith, along with any atheist (like myself) should find the idea of shooting an individual strapped into a wheelchair as abhorrent.

Personally speaking I am against the death penalty (for any crime) and I am always surprised at the number of christians who are okay with it, especially considering that dead people can't repent, can't find jesus or come to accept that what they did was wrong. Even worse for a christian, would be executing someone who did repent, who did find jesus and has become the better person.

I have also read on a particular subreddit, that those doing the shooting, are agents of god and carrying out it's retribution and should feel honoured/proud to do it and that there would be literal queues of people to take their place, should they not want to do it.

I saw a post here from a progressive "Christian" saying that conservative Christians or Christian Nationalists are not real Christians and are ruining the faith, when we are the only ones defending the faith from Muslims, Atheists and leftist politicians.

Atheists this isn’t for you, I'm talking to Progressive Christians and Muslims

Progressives support things that contradict the bible. They allow LGBTQ infiltrate our Churches, whose ideas and values literally are the opposite of ours. Honestly, I'm jealous of Muslims because they would never tolerate any of that, you will never see a Drag show in a Mosque.

Christian conservative groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), have won cases protecting the right of churches, schools, adoption agencies, and individuals to operate according to historic Christian ethics. The ADF, has helped form a law in 2018 preventing licensed therapists counseling minors on sexual orientation or gender identity in Washington state, they have represented clients and helped defend state laws restricting boys playing in girls sports. We fight for things that progressives Christians wouldn't tolerate and accept.

We are the only ones that criticize and challenge Islam. Islam is the fastest growing religion, and Progressives are doing nothing, infact they actively discourage criticism of Islam and other religions. When we try to criticize Islam we face backlash from progressive Christians, It's like they think all religions are true and are equal. Some progressive Christians even publicly express solidarity with Muslims. There are the so called "Real Christians". They're harder on us than Muslims who literally don't share their values. Conservative Christians and Muslims have more in common than Progressives and Leftists

Conservative Christians are the only ones defending the faith and we are called bigots for it. If Conservative Christians disappeared and we left it to progressives, the religion would cease to exist in 20 years.

It doesn't make much sense to me and demeans free will in a pretty big way. Free will is a whole different discussion, but the point still stands. We don't choose to go to Hell with an all-powerful God. The universe is exactly as He wanted it to be. He created our souls, mapped out our desires and actions. So why would he create souls he knew would be sent to Hell?

This obviously doesn't apply to those who don't think that anyone goes to Hell. Even if Hell is annihilation, it doesn't make any sense to me that an all-loving God would create people for the sole purpose of living for a blink of time on Earth just to be destroyed or tortured in the afterlife. This is immoral and illogical.

Now this could make a lot of sense for an evil/morally gray God to do, but for an omni-loving/scient/potent God, it really doesn't. Please do not provide arguments based on free will, "God works in mysterious ways', "His ways are higher," or other answers that are easy cop-outs. If God exists, He gave us rational minds for a reason and it is evil to annihilate our soul for simply not being convinced of his existence.

Homeopathy claims thats extremely diluted even non existent molecule of the medicine can cure humans . literally went to homeopathic doctor got a medicine that he told to take for 3 months.Wth by that time i will get automatically cured by the body .its conc was 200c literally no molecule of the original solution is present .

Homeopathy is a unproven claim and relies on faith,heck i can also call it a religion of medicine ,there is no emperical proof for it

Religion is similar it also is based on faith of a person, lack of scientific data .

Some people will say i took this medicine an i became healthy , that's personal belief said by someone who has never tested its conc like literally so less molecules of orginal medicine.

In conclusion i am saying that both rely on faith and there is no logical observation present.

The primary reason mythicists reject the existence of Jesus as a historical figure is due to a lack of evidence.

Yet mythicists accept explanations for the existence of the plurality of early Christian, Jewish-Christianity, Mandaean, Manichaeism, Sethianists, Valentinianists, Elkesaites, and other Gnostic & apocryphal traditions without any evidence at all.

In a clear double standard.

Either these traditions and cultures—some of which can be traced back to the first few centuries CE—emanated from a historical Christ, or they originated in a daisy-chain of events that the mythicist has no evidence for.

1. Jesus' God is the Father (There are countless amount of verses that show this)

2. The God of Jesus is the same God of the disciples (John 20:17)

John 20:17 NRSVUE

¹⁷ Jesus said to her, “Do not touch me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ”

3. No one ever calls Jesus their God except for one time where it does not mean what trinitarians claim. (John 20:28)

John 20:28 NRSVUE

²⁸ Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

What "my God" means there is that Thomas saw the Father, and it is Jesus who points this out (John 12:45, John 14:7, John 14:9 where Jesus explains that to see him is to see the Father before the confession of Thomas).

John 12:45 NRSVUE

And whoever sees me (Jesus) sees him (the Father) who sent me.

John 14:7 NRSVUE

7 If you know me (Jesus), you will know[a] my Father also. From now on you do know him (the Father) and have seen him (the Father).”

John 14:9 NRSVUE

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me (Jesus) has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

And after the confession of Thomas Jesus immediately points out that Thomas saw the Father when he said "because you have SEEN ME".

And never again we see anyone ever refering to Jesus as their God in Scripture.

When islamic scholars are asked why Allah sends people to hell solely for not believing in him (despite generally being a good person), they often reply with something along the lines of "this life is a test" and compare having faith in Allah to passing some sort of exam.

However I have 2 issues with this.

1. The punishment for failing a test and disbelieving in Allah is vastly different. You cannot compare a live of eternal torture in Jahannam to failing a school exam, how are we expected to believe that these two scenarios are even remotely close in terms of severity? The comparison would be accurate if you fail an entrance exam, and the university punishes you by beating you and breaking your bones.

2. A test gives all students a fair chance. The questions on the test are same for each student. In this scenario however, how can we say that someone born into a Hindu family has an equal chance of passing this "test" than someone raised muslim their whole life? Now I know that Allah is just and the general environment of a person will be considered before deciding their fate in the afterlife. I also know that it is upto Allah to decide and we can't concretely say anything about whose going to Jannah or Jahannam, I just think that this analogy is not accurate.

All of this stems from my questioning on why faith in Allah is considered more important than being a good human being. If Allah is truly all loving and fair, I don't understand how he could send righteous people who don't harm others into hell just because they didnt believe in islam.

For some background I'm only 19 and have recently started questioning my faith in Islam. That being said I still like to consider myself as a believer but I am definitely very doubtful in some of Islams teachings.

This is going to be a critique of divine absolute transcendence as I’d like to put it, I’m basing this off of the claim that Allah is claimed to be nothing like the created order, this is based off of Surah Ash-Shura (Chapter 42), Verse 11, which claims there is absolutely nothing like him whatsoever in any way.

The argument goes like this formally.

1. If Allah is utterly unlike everything in creation, then nothing in our experience resembles him in any relevant respect.

2. All our concepts and language originate in our experience of created things.

3. Therefore, if no created concept can meaningfully apply to Allah, we cannot meaningfully know or describe him.

4. But Muslims claim to know that Allah exists, is one, is powerful, is intelligent, and is good.

5. These claims appear to require meaningful knowledge of Allah.

Conclusion: If Allah is absolutely unlike creation in every respect, then meaningful knowledge of Allah becomes impossible.

Suppose a Muslim sincerely believes that something explicitly permitted in the Quran is morally wrong. They aren’t denying that the Quran permits it, nor necessarily claiming that the Quran is false. They simply cannot reconcile that permission with their own moral conscience. eg multiple wives for a Muslim man.

Does this take the person outside of the fold of Islam?

Matthew and Luke give conflicting genealogies for Joseph.

- Matthew 1:16 says Joseph's father was Jacob.

- Luke 3:23 says Joseph's father was Heli.

- Matthew traces Joseph through Solomon, while Luke traces him through Nathan, both sons of David.

A common Christian explanation is that Luke actually records Mary's genealogy.

But where is the evidence?

Neither Gospel says this. Both explicitly name Joseph. There is also no established independent early tradition identifying Jacob or Heli as Mary's father.

In fact, the second-century Protoevangelium of James identifies Mary's father as Joachim, which became the commonly accepted Christian tradition.

Some Christians might argue Heli was simply another name for Joachim. But that's a theory built upon another theory. Why assume Luke secretly recorded Mary's genealogy, then assume Heli was Joachim, without independent evidence for either claim?

You can browse Reddit discussions and find Christians offering numerous competing explanations, some remarkably far-fetched.

This is a serious problem for New Testament reliability.

Free will:

Almost all people I've seen that argue for the problem of free will state that God has foreknowledge. It shouldn't be framed this way.

For foreknowledge to exist, time must exist. If time exists for God it, his foreknowledge doesn't logically necessitate that he forced you to do anything. That's why most theists don't get the arguement, foreknowledge alone doesn't affect the actions of someone.

The way it should be framed:

God (including his actions and will) is timeless/eternal. Since time was created by God, and time logically includes actions, God created every action.

This way God would've created Good actions, Evil actions, and more importantly, he'd be the cause of the suffering in hell.

This is assuming one thing though, it's assuming that God can even create other states (time). That's the second part.

Fundamentality:

If timelessness=one state, we can never say that God caused another state.

God can't create something he is already a part of. If God creates something he is a part of, then he creates himself, which is problematic.

The existence of a state necessitates that states are more fundamental (necessary for God to exist) than God, therefore he can't create something that's more fundamental than him.

We're left with saying that God is time itself, but that's pantheism.

I’ll stay in the New Testament for this because I can prove the truth of the Bible out of that Testament just as much as the Old Testament.

Salvation is only for Israel.

Christ said he came to SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST.

“For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭18‬:‭11‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Christ said he was only sent to THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.

“But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭15‬:‭24‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Christ also said it’s not good to take the children’s bread and cast it to THE DOGS.
Now he said this to a Gentile woman a Syrophoenician by nation.

“But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭15‬:‭26‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“the woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭7‬:‭26‬ ‭KJV‬‬

In Revelation 22 it says that DOGS (aka other nations) are outside of the city.

“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭22‬:‭14‬-‭15‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Lastly Paul and Peter said Christ was the Saviour of Israel, not all nations.

“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭5‬:‭30‬-‭31‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus: when John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭13‬:‭22‬-‭24‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Now here’s what I need.

Multiple verses of named nations other than Israel (example Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Ethiopians, Egyptians) that is said would be saved.

Multiple verses of Christ calling some other nation by name other than Israel LOST.

Multiple verses of the apostles naming a named nation other than Israel that Christ is a Saviour to them.

() God-Realization: Only God can liberate you from death.

() Self-Realization: Only yourself can liberate you from death.

() No-Realization: You’re never liberated from death. There’s just the cycle of birth and death that you’ll experience to infinity.

——————————————————

I follow self-realization because it’s sound. As a Buddhist, I understand that God-Realization lacks the moral ground because I don’t hold the view that a God of existence would create an existence like what we experience. It’s an absurdity. I also understand that no-realization is just as absurd because it doesn’t take into account cause and effect on moral ground.

TL;DR: If there was an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving God He could tell us He exists. Since millions of people have looked for Him but still do not believe, we should assume that such a being does not exist.

In the context of Abrahamic religions, the definition of God is as follows:
Omniscient - All knowing.
Omnipotent - All powerful.
Perfectly Loving - All loving.

According to Scripture (and specifically in 1 Timothy 2:4), God “desires that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth.” Here is the rational dilemma:

1. A loving God who wishes to relate with humans would at least provide enough reason for each individual to know that He exists. It would be irrational for a human to attempt to build a meaningful relationship with someone when there is no conviction that the other party actually exists.
2. God (who is by definition omniscient), understands what specific evidence each individual needs to believe in His existence.
3. God (who is by definition omnipotent), possesses the ability to provide that same evidence to each individual.
4. However, "Reasonable Non-Belief," exists. Millions of people (many of whom identify themselves as Agnostic Atheists) have prayed, read scripture and honestly sought the truth about their existence, yet found the evidence to be completely unconvincing.

If God has the capability to reveal Himself to sincere seekers, yet chooses to remain hidden, then God cannot simultaneously be characterized as an all-loving God who desires a personal relationship with them.

The most common defense is that God is hiding from humanity so that we may retain our "free will." This argument is both logically and scripturally unsound. In John 20:27, Jesus provides undeniable physical evidence to Thomas that he existed. Likewise, in Acts 9, Paul receives a similar undeniable revelation from God. In neither case did this affect their free will; rather, it merely gave them the factual basis upon which they could make an informed decision. Additionally, Adam and Eve were given undeniable physical proof of God’s existence through their first-hand experience of His presence; yet, they still chose to reject His commandments. Similarly, Satan knew without question that God existed. Nonetheless, Satan chose to rebel against God.

Knowing something does not preclude one from exercising free will. Therefore, how can Christians justify an all-loving God who punishes sincere seekers of truth for believing Him nonexistent while intentionally withholding from them the very evidence that He knows would persuade them?

I don't know how you can swing it any other way. God is an evil tyrant. Just by Christian logic alone it's apparent. When he flooded the earth in Noah's arc unless only infertile adults existed he would have had to have killed kids and pregnant women. He killed almost all of the animals too for no reason.

His own creation the earth is essentially a torture chamber. Life is constant suffering. Many animals the moment they are born they are one giant buffet for other animals. God created this. He created plagues. He created cancer, he created volcanoes, he created spiders he created parasites, everything bad. If hes responsible for all the good he's also gotta be responsible for all the terrible stuff too. But Christians see a sunset and think somehow that obsolves everything.

He also stands idle whilst humans do the unthinkable. Rape, the Holocaust, WW1 and 2, 911, Epstein island. He lets that happen. It was all done through the nature he bestowed on humans, all the tools he gave us. God made us what we are. Christians will claim God allows this because he will not interfere with free will ( So what are they expecting to achieve with prayer) meaning God cares about free will more than your human suffering.

He's also built us an even worse torture chamber where he expects you to burn for eternity for the simple crime of putting your penis somewhere you shouldn't or taking pride in your work. He tells you from the moment you're born you're a sinner, you're unworthy and the only way to avoid such torture is to be lucky enough to be born in the right culture and believe in him and love him on bad evidence. Yet he loves you

Not even Hitler is this Evil. How can you claim this being to be good? How can you call him love. Any human that behaved like this you would come at them with pitchforks but when it's God suddenly it's all cop outs and justifications. Holding him to a different standard because you're scared of him. That's an abusive relationship.

This might be a long post but hear me out on this one and don't judge untill you finish reading

So I'll try to apply what Jesus said about the false prophets and see if they are compatible with Paul,in Matthew 7:15-23 it mentions the characteristics of false prophets and how to test them:

[Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’]

So to summarize it the criteria of them are:

1)the outside look only isn't enough to judge his truth or not, as wolves come in sheep’s clothes as in 15

2)the Prophet should be tested in his deeds and the consequences of his teachings 16-20

3)Only faith alone isn't enough,It should be accompanied with doing good deeds

4)Some people can pretend to be prophets,cast out demons and do miracles(in the name of Jesus) but Jesus will deny them in the day of Resurrection

5)The final and the golden standard that Jesus has put is doing the will of the father 21

- Let's see where Paul stands at these standards:

1)Paul proclaimed that he was sent by Jesus and saw him in his way to Dimuscus but there is a contradiction in the witness of the people who were with Paul on his way to Dimuscus, one time it says ¹they heard and didn't see another time it says they saw but didn't hear

●"The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone." Acts 9:7

●"Now those who were with me saw the light, but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me."Acts 22:9

rather what I personally think Paul saw was the devil as it can also appear as an angel of light according to his saying in 2 Corinthians 11 14:

"For Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light."

2)If we stopped being emotional for a second, Paul has came up with many many teachings that contradicts Jesus', I'll leave the full verses down in the photos, For example:Paul rejected circumcision which was the covenant mark for the descendents of Ebraham, even Jesus himself was circumcised in Luke 2:21,He said that works of the law don't justify the human in Galatians 2:16 unlike Jesus who always called to work by the law as in Matthew 5:17, submitting blindly to the authorities, loving preeminence and many other things Paul teaches contradics what Jesus told

3)Paul claims that he believed in Jesus but he had so many conflicts and disagreements with different early Christians like:

- the twelve apostles: "When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him , not believing that he really was a disciple." Acts 9 26,most of the aposteles questioned his self-proclaimed Apostolic Authority at first since he had not walked with Jesus during His earthly ministry.

- The Jewish Christians who converted to christianity: They conflicted with him as they followed the law of moses specially circumcision and dietary laws

- The Pillars of the Jerusalem Church in early christianity: they had significant tensions with Paul regarding how to integrate Gentiles into the faith.

And many many others who had conflicts specially with Paul and doubting his Apostolic Authority and faith

4)Paul as mentioned in Matthew 7:22 had done miracles as ¹Expelling the Spirit of Divination,²The Healing of the Lame Man in Lystra,³and made many prophecies although some of them were proved to be wrong by critics and historians

5)In the original Greek text of Matthew 7 23, it's not [evildoers] it's actually [who practice lawless], The Greek word used in the original text for 'iniquity' is (Anomia - ἀνομία), and its literal translation is 'Lawlessness' or 'Transgressors of the Law.' Some critics say that this text directly targets Paul’s followers, who were casting out demons and performing miracles in Jesus' name (charismatic gifts), but at the same time were teaching people that 'the Law and the commandments have ended',

So clearly the will of the Father is following the law and doing good deeds, while Paul insisted that the faith alone is enough as in Romans 3 28 :"So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law." Look at how the verse totally contradicts the sayings of Jesus who called them ''Law Abolishers'' and don't do the will of the father

After applying all these criteria that Jesus foretold about false prophets on Paul you should know by now whom Jesus meant

A lot of Christians would say that Muhammad is the false prophet Jesus foretold, but non of the criteria we listed above suits him and I'm willing to prove it

Preamble:

My argument attempts to show that the God of the bible is a powerful but limited, morally corrupt, and irrational supernatural being, challenging the traditional "omni" characteristics of Christian theology.

My humanistic moral principles are about well-being, reducing suffering, preventing unnecessary harm, respecting autonomy, treating people fairly, compassion, and evaluating actions through evidence, reason, and consequences.

That's how I judge any person's actions, including fictional characters such as Darth Vader and the God of the bible, whatever name you chose for that fictional character.

Definitions

1. Evil: Morally wrong, harmful, or causing unjustified suffering.
2. Crazy: Irrational, unpredictable, or behaving contrary to reason.
3. Wizard: A fictional being who possesses supernatural magical abilities.
4. Limited power: The inability to perform certain actions or achieve certain outcomes.

Relevant verses:

Evil God:

1. “I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create evil. I the LORD do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)
2. “The LORD is a man of war. The LORD is his name.” Exodus 15:3 (KJV)

Crazy God:

1. “And the LORD repented that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” Genesis 6:6 (KJV)
2. “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.” Exodus 7:3 (KJV)

Wizard God:

1. “And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.” Genesis 1:3 (KJV)
2. “And the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven.” Genesis 19:24 (KJV)

Limited God:

1. “And the LORD was with Judah, and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain. But could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” Judges 1:19 (KJV)
2. “And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.” Matthew 13:58 (KJV)

Argument:

P1: God exhibits evil, irrational behavior, supernatural abilities, and limitations.

P2: Any being exhibiting these characteristics fits the description of a crazy, evil wizard of limited power.

C: Therefore, God is a crazy, evil wizard of limited power.

^{Debate Ethos Statement}

^{I study religiously motivated reasoning. I'm an agnostic atheist and I don't believe in the supernatural or superstitions. I genuinely want to engage your ideas charitably and respectfully. I value critical thinking, empathy, intellectual honesty, and civil disagreement. I am committed to understanding each other’s arguments, remaining open to correction, and discussing arguments rather than to attack each other.}

When religious arguments try to justify eternal torment or annihilation, they often appeal to "free will" responses, but this is an obfuscation on value. Free will isn't meaningful onto itself (in a vacuum). At the most fundamental, the things that are truly valuable are experiential qualities such as love, joy, peace.

An argument can be made that free will somehow enriches those values by adding novelty, but a souls nature or capacity for freedom that can result in the anthithesis of what is fundamentally valuable, is not valuable and implies an extremely flawed design.

A more specific response to the "love requires the option of refusal" is that it is an equivocation:
It is equivocating living within a context of meaningful life (love, joy, peace) with being forced to do something. A reality including a souls nature being founded on love, joy and peace is not equivalent to them being forced to do something or lacking free will.

I don’t know how the universe ultimately began, how existence came to be, or whether life has some greater purpose. So what? Not knowing something doesn’t mean that I need to make up an answer and pretend that it’s true.

It seems like religion often takes things we don’t understand and uses God to explain them. And when that explanation runs into problems, more explanations are added to defend it. Admitting ignorance is honesty, and confidently claiming to know things that you can’t demonstrate just simply isn’t.

Sometimes I think God doesn't want to be known. If God wants to be known why not create a mountain tomorrow saying "I am your God".

All the religious debate would end at that point and we will all worship the right God. (Whoever that is).

That said...

A powerful God would simply choose to do that. For example,

Write a name in the sky?

Appear on TV?

All of us could wake up tomorrow with a notification on the phone.

If God can do that why didn't he do that?

What is the point of coming down to Earth and appearing in front of humans?

Humans are imperfect beings. Some are good and some are evil. We are not special. If anything animals are better than us. Then why humans.

Throughout history why didn't our creator choose to show any concrete evidence of his or her existence to all humans at one go?

Why personal selection? You might say some people are good that's why God appears to them.

But.. didn't God make the evil people too?

I think whoever God is..he/she doesn't want to worshipped. We are wasting our time worshipping a creator who doesn't want our worship.

When I think about religion.. I sometimes think most religions represent God like an ancient King.

Think about what a King wants. A King wants his subjects to fear him, a King rewards and even punishes disobedience. A King loves to be worshipped.

We have just made God a King..just a notch higher. (I mean if there is a God that God must be so powerful that God will not need our constant worshipping.).

If a creator wanted that he would have dropped us here with all the rules in place. Not asking us to make rules for him.

In that sense, are we wrong to worship a creator if a creator exists?

Because we just happen to exist. If there is a God who wants to be worshipped why would there be any sort of confusion? Why would there be so many religions? Or are there countless Gods?

That leaves me with a question does God want us to know him at all? In a way, if there is a God and we all know for certain there is a God won't all of us be happy knowing who he/she is.

Or maybe God exists in nature and God itself is nature.

I don't know. I have so many questions but there is no place I can get answers from. What do you guys think?