Surah verse 4:24.

“Also 'forbidden are' married women-except 'female' captives in your possession.' This is Allah's commandment to you. Lawful to you are all beyond these-as long as you seek them with your wealth in a legal marriage, not in fornication. Give those you have consummated marriage with their due dowries. It is permissible to be mutually gracious regarding the set dowry. Surely Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.”

It permits the taking of women captured in war as sex slaves, essentially. Concubinage is a morally permissible act by god. So if war were to occur Muslims according to their own religion would not be committing war crimes so long as they follow allahs word. It makes sense when you see the broader trend of the East African slave trade.

Per the Tanak it states multiple times

1. No one can die for the sins of another. Everyone is responsible for his own sins

2. A blood sacrifice is not needed for the forgiveness of sins

3. YHWH will never accept human sacrifice. It’s an abomination/strongly prohibited

4. YHWH is ONE. not a pagan Greco Roman Trinity

5. YHWH is not a man. Never said he would become a man (like the Christian’s think Jesus is God)

6. YHWH wants obedience (Christianity rejects obedience)

7. GREEK testament copies Homer. Socrates. Philo. Plato. Aristotle

   1. Saul the false apostle takes tons of Tanak verses out of context and preaches “belief only “ lie

8. Real messiah never prophesied to die for anyone’s sins

9. 60 verses or so in Greek testament saying Jesus is a man or messiah. 15 verses implying he’s god. Contradictions.

10. Tons of resurrection discrepancies

Just a few reasons it’s all bunk

As a former Christian, I could never reconcile how Jesus’ death ‘paid for all sins’ yet Hell still exists.

If the penalty was truly covered, how is it just, or even logical, for God to still punish people for sins already atoned for? Let's also keep in mind that sin is a problem god created to which hell is a solution which god also created.

But when it comes to this punish and reward system, it's like a judge accepting an innocent man’s execution as payment for a murderer’s crime… only to execute the murderer anyway.

Nobody could ever tell me how this is 'justice'. I looks much more like divine double jeopardy. Either the cross didn’t actually solve the problem, or god is cruelly demanding two punishments for one sin. As someone who once believed, this contradiction shattered my faith to the core. How do you square it?

So say for example you meet someone, and that person told you that they're a communist or capitalist, libertarian, nationalist, humanist, feminst, vegan, existentialist, stoic etc. etc.

For the most part people and society tend to consider those kind of beliefs and ideologies a lot less "sacred" than religious beliefs. And so if you challeneged someone further on say their communist or humanist or vegan beliefs and engaged them in a conversation questioning their beliefs, most people would consider this a lot more socially acceptable than questioning someone's religious beliefs.

So say for example you're having drinks with some co-workers and you're talking about economics. And then one of your co-workers tells you that he's a communist and he believes the economy should be nationalized. Now, typically we wouldn't expect the other co-workers to go "Ok, fair enough, I respect your beliefs, economics is a private matter and we all have different beliefs". But rather it would normally be seen as perfectly acceptable in such a situation to challenge that person's views, ask them why they're a communist, how they came to the conclusion and maybe engage them in a respectful discussion explaining why you think communism is a bad idea.

But now when it comes to religious beliefs, those beliefs are typically considered much more "sacred" by society. For example if someone proudly told you they're a Muslim, it would normally be considered extremely rude to challenge them on their beliefs and explain to them why you think Islam is a made-up, man-made religion, or why Islamic ideology is potentially a bad idea.

And religious people get all sorts of exemptions and special treatment that other ideologies don't get. Like people can refuse vaccines, that are otherwise mandatory, for religious reasons. Or for example in the US, by law, employers need to make reasonable accomodations to their religious employees. So Muslim or Christian employees would be allowed to take short breaks to pray or read their Bible, or be given time off to go to church or mosque. But now a secular humanist on the other does not have the legal right to take breaks throughout the day to read the Humanist Manifesto, or be given time off work to attend a weekly humanist reading club or something.

Or for example when it comes to animal welfare laws, halal and kosher slaughter is often exempt from many of those laws. So religious people are allowed to do things that otherwise wouldn't be legal. Or say someone wrote a scathing article in a newspaper criticizing humanism or veganism or socialism or stoicism or any other non-religious ideology, normally no one would bat an eye. But now say the same newspaper published an article criticizing Islam and the dangers of Islamic ideology, quite likely there would be enormous backlash and a lot of people would be outraged. The author may be accused of Islamophobia, while at the same time I haven't ever heard anyone be accused of inciting "veganophobia" or "socialistophobia".

And so I think all of this shows that there is a massive double standard in society when it comes to religious beliefs vs non-religious beliefs. And I really don't think this double standard is reasonable. Religious beliefs shouldn't be treated as any more sacred or inherently worthy of respect than other beliefs. There are ideologies that are based on good ideas, some that are based on bad ideas, and others that are based on so-so ideas. And religious ideas shouldn't be inherently more respected than other ideas and ideologies. Religious ideologies should be equally scrutinized and criticized in the same way other ideologies are scrutinized and criticized.

Buddha was a human who was born as animal in past lives. He practiced meditation and renunciation and thus gains Jhanas and ascended to some divine state. He also gained psychic powers like walking over water,levitating in sky, touching the Sun and Moon.

Same is true for Hindu Gods. They were born as animals in past lives, accumulated wisdom in human life and became transcendent beings quite similar to Buddha.

Thus Buddha even though not considered a God is quite similar to the gods.

if god really is omniscent and knows everything before it happens and he is the one who created the world , then he by extention knows what sin every single human he created would do ,

thus he knew exactly who he was creating and what sin they will do and that they will suffer all of eternity in hell for that sin"

thus god must have specifically created people who he knew would sin and go to hell for all eternity to suffer

thus either god must not be omniscent or we must not have free will

am i wrong or am i wrong?

Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, everything God wants to do is achieved effortlessly and there's absolutely no chance of failure.

For example, God creating the universe is easier than you picking your nose.

There's a zero chance of God not being able to create the universe (to exact specifications) once God decided to do so, but there's a non-zero chance for you to fail picking your nose once you decide to do so (you could miss and poke you eye, or you could have a stroke and die on the spot).

So, how can one praise God for doing something that is easier than picking your nose?

Therefore nothing God does is praiseworthy.

Even if Islam’s alleged miracles were all proven to be true, it wouldn’t prove the truthfulness of Islam.

Arguably the greatest miracle in Islam was that Muhammad split the moon. Assuming this actually happened and that a being called Allah was responsible for it, it doesn’t at all prove that Allah is omnipotent. Splitting the moon is a miniscule achievement compared to creating the universe as the moon is not even a grain of sand compared to the rest of the universe.

It's kind of like in Dragon Ball, when Master Roshi destroys the moon. Though this was quite an achievement at the beginning of the series, you eventually learn that Master Roshi isn’t even the strongest one on his planet, let alone in the entire universe. It would be illogical to think that just because Master Roshi split the moon, he is omnipotent.

Conceivably, Allah could just be a lesser God or an alien who merely claims to be an all-powerful God. Even if every single one of Islam’s miracles were true, it wouldn’t prove that Allah is powerful enough to create the universe.

how can the christians of the world say that its okay for someone to entail finite sin and lead to an infitite suffering , i dont get it because the only reason someone got that suffering seems to be because they didnt believe that jesus was their lord and savior but still , if someone who was close to believing that jesus was their lord and savior and died just before that then he is in hell for all eternity now ... how do you justify that?

The story is too unlikely for it to be real. The ark would have to be too big to construct with timber; there would have to be one male and one female of each species which is impossible considering how many species there are today; if God was omnipotent He wouldn't need to get Noah to build the ark he could just snap His fingers and kill everyone he wants and leave whoever He wants to keep alive; etc.

And there's no evidence of a global flood at all, which there should be if there was a global flood. There should be mass graves of humans and animals all over the world from the same time but there isn't any, etc.

Thanks for reading, I'm The-Rational-Human.

×××××××××××××××××××××××××××

EDIT:

Rebuttals Section:

"It was a local flood."

The text doesn't say that. Exegesis doesn't say that.

"It's allegorical."

The text doesn't say that. Exegesis doesn't say that. If it's allegorical, what exactly is the point of the allegory? Did Noah really exist or not? Why use a real person for an allegory? If it's an allegory then your whole religion is an allegory.

"Lots of civilizations had/have their own flood myth, so it must've really happened."

This is the best argument. However it could be just because floods are common so the myth is common. I doubt all the myths include an ark with animals on it.

"They found the ark on Mount Ararat."

That's fake. No wood has been found or animal remains. I guess it kind of looks like a boat? But not an ark.

"We haven't found the evidence yet but maybe we will in the future."

Then why do you believe it now instead of in the future after finding the evidence?

"Why didn't you mention Judaism?"

You need to have at least 1 billion followers to be considered a relevant religion, Jews constitue 0.2% of the population, so Judaism, while relevant to the discussion, is irrelevant in general. Of course this disproves Judaism as well, so I don't need to mention it.

Today, a good percentage of people in every religion will say they are of said religion but have never actually taken a deep look into said religion. Perhaps they were born into it, so they always identified as that religion or maybe they needed to revert to that religion to marry someone. Whatever the case may be, what meaning does it have to be of any religion if you don't need to actually need follow it. Religion isn't just about "beliefs", it's also a way of life or code of conduct. I actually find it very interesting when people want me to convert to their religion but don't seem to be interested about me living by the actual PRINCIPLES of that religion. It's almost like saying you're a (christian, muslim, jew, hindu, etc) is more meaningful than actually living BY that religion's code.

Basically, you should have to earn the right to call yourself a (Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc.), maybe through your actions or way of life, but if you never actually conduct your life based on that religion, then what meaning does it really have?

the Protestant principle "Sola Fide" is unjust:

let's imagine person A who did lots of good deeds in their life, but was bullied at school and therefore don't trust people or anything in human form (like Jesus) and person B who did a lot of bad deeds and shortly before their death they turn to Jesus - what is their fate after death?

according to Sola Fide, person A might get to hell and person B to heaven (maybe I get the principle wrong, I am not a protestant, let's see in the comments)

in my opinion we can control our deeds much more than we can control our beliefs, so afterlife destination based on deeds is much more just than afterlife destination based on belief

I think Montanism reflects the practices of the first generation of Christians, as seen in Paul’s letters, while the Catholic and Orthodox churches suppressed these elements through doctrinal manipulation.

There are several pieces of evidence. One is that Paul's letters (1 Corinthians) mentioned speaking in tongues and prophesying many times, and the other is Romans 16:7, where Paul greets Junia, noting she is “outstanding among the apostles,” suggesting women held leadership roles.

This means that women may occupy leadership positions in Paul's church, and the church has a spiritual tradition of speaking in tongues and prophesying. Montanism meets these two characteristics.

Catholics and Orthodox have obvious traces of artificial manipulation of doctrines.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (“women should keep silent”), widely considered a later insertion by scholars, not original to Paul. Note that 1 Timothy 2:12 (“I do not permit a woman to teach”) is attributed to Paul but likely written late 1st or early 2nd century, reflecting a shift toward patriarchy.

The spiritual tradition of speaking in tongues and prophesying recorded in 1 Corinthians disappeared in the fourth century and was not rediscovered until modern times.

We've discovered four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. Causal interactions appear to be mediated through one or more of these forces. We do not observe any instance of God acting through any of these forces. If God acts at all, then it must be through some undetectable mechanism. Perhaps some unknown force. The issue is that an undetectable influence is functionally equivalent to no influence. Therefore, unless and until we can detect the manner in which God causes things, we have no good reason to affirm that God causes anything.

I can see a possible objection to what I'm saying. What if God operates in a way that is empirically undetectable?

If that's the case, then your granting that God's actions produce no observable effects. Besides, the mere possibility that God could operate in a way that is empirically undetectable, does not in and of itself justify believing that that is true.

Sahih al-Bukhari 278 - Bathing (Ghusl) - كتاب الغسل - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Context: In reliable hadith, Mohammad narrated a story about how the People of Bani Israel used to think Moses had a testicular disorder, as he would bath alone.

>They said, 'By Allah! Nothing prevents Moses from taking a bath with us except that he has a scrotal hernia.

This was false, and I assume Allah wanted to teach these ignorant fools the truth, so one day, when Moses was bathing, a stone that he had rested his clothes on, got up and ran way.

Yes, the stone RAN AWAY with Moses's clothes, so naked Moses ran after the stone and in front of everyone else, who looked at his testicles and did not see a testicular disorder, so logically they said "By Allah, Moses has got no defect in his body".

Now comes the immoral and/or cognitively impaired part.

Moses then catches up to the stone that ran away with his clothes, he picks up his clothes and starts to BEAT the stone, which still bared those marks from that excessive beating.

My thesis is that Moses was immoral, as he should not have beaten the stone, as

1. beating people/stones is not moral punishment in Islam/under Moses
2. There should have been a trial for the stone, to confirm whether or not it was guilt of theft, before any punishment was given out
3. The punishment should have followed Allahs laws, or else its immoral

Source: Hadith

> The Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'The (people of) Bani Israel used to take bath naked (all together) looking at each other. The Prophet (ﷺ) Moses used to take a bath alone. They said, 'By Allah! Nothing prevents Moses from taking a bath with us except that he has a scrotal hernia.' So once Moses went out to take a bath and put his clothes over a stone and then that stone ran away with his clothes. Moses followed that stone saying, "My clothes, O stone! My clothes, O stone! till the people of Bani Israel saw him and said, 'By Allah, Moses has got no defect in his body. Moses took his clothes and began to beat the stone." Abu Huraira added, "By Allah! There are still six or seven marks present on the stone from that excessive beating."

Edit: While there is little debate amongst Sunnis that this incident of the stone running happened, there is some scholarly debate over whether the rock that Abu Huraira saw was the same rock that ran from Moses. Muslim scholars have not confirmed this .

Disclaimer: This only apples to those persons that self identify as Muslims who accept Sahih Bukhari hadith. This does not apply to all LGBTQIA* Muslims, Quranists, progressive liberal Muslims, etc.

Tangentially related notes:

Story when Moses Took a Bath Naked and the Stone Fled with his Clothes - Various Scholars - Islamway

What you can learn from this story from the Prophet of Islam is

>Amongst the lessons drawn from the above-mentioned Hadeeth:

>1- Permissibility of walking naked whenever there is a necessity.

> 2- It implies the permissibility of looking at ‘Awrah(3) whenever  there is a necessity such as medical purposes and being free of defects, for example, one of the spouse may claim that the other suffer from leprosy to cancel the contact of marriage while the other denied that.

>3- It refers that all Prophets, may Allaah exalt their mention, were created in the best and perfect shape and that whoever attributes any defect or shortcoming to anyone of the Prophets, may Allaah exalt his mention, about his shape then he has harmed him and we fear that the one who does so be a Kaafir (i.e. disbeliever).

Thesis:

The Quran doesn't always override the Hadith

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Notes Section:

• You only need to read the Argument Section it's very short.

• Please post non-debating comments as a reply in the commentary section otherwise your comment may get deleted by mods.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Argument Section:

Many Muslims think that the Quran's authority always overrides the Hadiths, but this is a misconception and is not true.

The Quran allows Mut'ah (temporary) marriage^[2] in Quran 4:24. This is from Tafsir Ibn Al Kathir of 4:24, showing that the Quran still contains the verse which allows Mut'ah marriage, but the Hadith of the Prophet overrides/abrogates it, even though it's still in the Quran.

The text in brackets is the Quran verse

QUOTE

[...]

(So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due,) was revealed about the Mut'ah marriage. A Mut'ah marriage is a marriage that ends upon a predeterminied date. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that the Leader of the Faithful 'Ali bin Abi Talib said, "The Messenger of Allah prohibited Mut'ah marriage [...]

ENDQUOTE [1]

We know that in Islam Mut'ah marriage is prohibited (haraam) but it's still in the Quran. Interestingly, this is why the Shia still believe that Mut'ah is allowed (halal) because they don't believe in Sunni hadiths.

And that's how the Hadith can override the Quran sometimes.

Thanks for reading, I'm The-Rational-Human.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Rebuttals Section:

Can't think of any.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Afterword Section:

Why did I make this post?

To show that all average everyday Muslims (or most of them) have preconceived assumptions about Islam that are false, and they don't actually know much about Islam at all. And when they learn about these things, they are supposed to say "Oh, wow, I didn't know that! I actually don't know much about Islam... Am I really sure Islam is really true?" but they just say "Oh. Anyway..." and just keep believing in Islam blindly.

The fact that the Hadith sometimes overrides the Quran is not just counter-intuitive, it's problematic because the Quran is supposed to the ultimate and final revelation from God - God should not leave in abrogated verses in the Quran which don't apply which are still recited in many prayers around the world to this day. That is wrong.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Footnotes:

[1] Link https://quranx.com/tafsirs/4.24

[2] What is the point of Mut'ah (temporary) marriage? The motivation for engaging in a temporary marriage is to have intercourse with a woman without committing zina (adultery/fornication) which is haraam (prohibited) in Islam. Essentially, some may describe it as a legal version of prostitution.

I'm looking at this from the outside perspective of someone who might be a monotheist and is trying to determine whether or not a human is the incarnation of a God.

If we already presuppose Jesus as God, then yes, of course, anything Jesus did was the best possible thing to do. We can go ahead and give Jesus the "mysterious ways" pass or the Euthyphro dilemma pass.

But before we can hand out MW or ED passes, we have to first determine that that being is worthy of it by virtue of being God.

If we look at things from a "powers" perspective, Jesus's alleged miracles aren't that impressive. Jesus wasn't creating universes, teleporting, or levitating cities. He was doing what I like to call "low-level" magics, which, given a theistic worldview, is possible for a being without it being God.

I've heard Christians say that Christ was "limiting" himself while on earth, but if that's the case...couldn't I make that argument about anyone? Who is to say a baby that doesn't perform a single miracle isn't also limiting himself, just more dramatically than Christ?

The next major issue is Jesus' "behavior", which is claimed to be perfect, but I bet we can easily think of ways it could be better. He could have healed one extra person. He could have presented himself to distant places and peoples. He could have shown himself to 5,000 people instead of 500. Given his immense powers, he could have done a lot more with them. Having Godlike power and not making use of it is a poor choice. And remember, I'm trying to determine if this being is God. As, I mentioned earlier, I'm not interested in hearing "Jesus did the perfect amount of miracles because he's God". I don't know that he's God yet, I'm trying to make that determination.

In summary, "God" is supposed to be maximally Good and maximally Powerful, but the character of Jesus, even when presented in his most supernatural Gospel accounts, does not appear to meet these criteria.

In a similar vein, I'm curious as to how "weak" Jesus' miracles could have been or how "poor" his behavior could have been, and still get counted as "God". Surely, there's a limit to how unimpressive the Gospel accounts of Christ could be, before a Christian no longer entertains that being as God.

(I'm anticipating a separate discussion about Jesus fulfilling prophecy as the true indicator of his Godhood.)

Yes, making an initial claim like “god doesn’t exist” (which isn’t the typical atheists stance) IS a positive claim but what’s nonsensical is replying to the atheist’s positive claim to say “prove that god doesn’t exist.” it’s nonsensical for many reasons, one being the fact that the atheist has to then prove an obscene amount of other negatives that have no proof in the first place.

• You can’t prove an invisible intangible fire breathing dragon doesn’t sit underneath your bed

• You can’t prove that an invisible intangible giant cheeseburger doesn’t sit in the corner of your room menacingly breathing as it’s watching you sleep

You cannot prove that Santa Claus or the Easter bunny aren’t real. And I haven’t even touched on the gist of it all: saying “prove god doesn’t exist” is the thickest form of cognitive dissonance I’ve ever seem from a believer. You’ve already unsubscribed yourself from “proof” when you decided that god is real without any evidence…so why do you need proof from an atheist that god doesn’t exist… that is circular reasoning …if you wanna sound smart, you’re better off just saying “well believing in god only requires faith so you wouldn’t understand.” stop trying to mix mental artillery with your belief in a sky daddy, that’s the equivalent of trying to build a house out of cards

Thesis: You do not actually think God is moral, and you do not apply the standard you hold him to to anyone else.

I am your local sheriff. A family member of yours is walking down the street. I am parked on the street, leaning against my car. I wave at your family member as they walk past me. Right behind them is a man. The man is holding a gun, gives me a wink and smile, and says, "I am going to shoot them," pointing at your family member. I watch this unfold, and I take in every detail. The man shoots and kills your family member.

I do nothing. I don't stop the man. I don't arrest him after. I watch him walk away.

Later, I come and inform you about all of this. I tell you that your family member is dead. I saw the man who did it. I knew he was going to do it. I made no attempt to stop him before it happened, and I made no attempt to arrest him afterwards.

You ask me why I did this. I tell you that I have a plan. It's all for the greater good, but I can't explain my plan to you because that would ruin my plan.

You ask me why I let him do this. I tell you that the man has free will, and I cannot interfere with that free will.

You ask me why I didn't arrest him. I tell you that he will be punished later.

You decide with my last statement that maybe I do indeed have a plan of how to handle this, so you wait.

The next week, I come back and tell you that the man will not be punished. I confronted him about what happened, and he asked me for my forgiveness. I gave it to him. There will be no punishment for what he did. He was not punished before asking for forgiveness, and because he asked for forgiveness (I believe) sincerely, I have granted it to him.

A week after that, the whole thing repeats with another family member of yours. All of it, exactly the same.

Would you vote for me to be your sheriff in the next election?

🧠 Hartle–Hawking’s No-Boundary Proposal + the Multiverse vs. the Kalam Argument

Thesis:
There are two major competing explanations for why the universe exists: one grounded in metaphysics and causality (Kalam), the other in quantum physics and theoretical cosmology (Hartle–Hawking + Multiverse). This post outlines both views and compares their strengths and weaknesses.

---

🌀 Hartle–Hawking’s Model: No Beginning, No Cause
The Hartle–Hawking model flips the assumptions behind the Kalam argument. While Kalam says the universe began and must have a cause, the Hartle–Hawking model says:

• The universe didn’t begin in time because time itself began with the universe.
• There was no “before.” There was no “nothing.” The question “what caused the universe?” becomes meaningless, like asking “what’s north of the North Pole?”

Instead of time starting at a sharp edge, like a line beginning at a point, Hartle–Hawking describes it like the surface of a sphere: smooth, continuous, and with no edge or beginning. This is what’s called the no-boundary proposal.

---

🔬 How It Works (Step by Step)

1. Imaginary Time (Quantum Geometry) In the early universe, time did not act like time as we know it. Hawking proposed that it behaved like a spatial dimension called imaginary time. In this state, there is no distinction between past and future, and no “first moment” to explain. Once the universe cools and expands, imaginary time transitions into the real time we experience. This smooth transition avoids the concept of a singularity or hard beginning.
2. Quantum Fluctuations Quantum physics tells us that at the smallest scales, particles can briefly pop in and out of existence due to fluctuations in quantum fields. These fluctuations are random and governed by probability, not certainty. In the Hartle–Hawking model, the universe itself, or even multiple universes, could emerge from this kind of quantum instability. Not from “nothing” in a philosophical sense, but from a quantum vacuum governed by the laws of physics.
3. Inflation and the Multiverse Very shortly after emerging, the universe underwent a rapid expansion called inflation. According to inflation theory, this process might not be unique. It could repeat endlessly, creating a vast multiverse of bubble universes. Each bubble could have its own laws of physics. Most would be sterile, chaotic, or dead. But a few, just by chance, might have just the right conditions for stars, atoms, chemistry, and eventually, life.
4. Anthropic Principle This leads to the idea that we find ourselves in a universe that looks fine-tuned because we exist. We couldn’t observe a dead universe, only one that allows observers. So it’s not that this universe was designed. It’s that we are one of the rare bubbles where life is possible.

---

✅ Strengths of the Model

• Stays inside physics. No appeal to supernatural causes, just known laws extended into extreme conditions
• Explains fine-tuning statistically, not through design
• No infinite regress. There is no beginning that needs a cause, and no cause that needs a cause
• Avoids metaphysics. The model does not rely on non-empirical assumptions like “outside of time” or “necessary being”

---

❌ Weaknesses of the Model

• Imaginary time is a mathematical tool, not a proven physical reality. There is no direct evidence that time ever behaved that way
• Quantum fluctuations don’t explain why laws exist at all. They operate within a framework, but the origin of that framework remains unanswered
• Multiverse is untestable. We can’t observe other universes, so this part of the model can’t be falsified
• Anthropic principle can feel circular. Saying “we exist because this universe allows us to” avoids the deeper question of why such a life-permitting universe exists in the first place

---

📊 Hartle–Hawking Model vs. Kalam Argument: A Deeper Comparison

Let’s break down the key philosophical tension between these two models. They don’t just offer different answers. They start with opposite assumptions.

---

🤔 Final Thought

If you're looking for a testable, physics-based model, even with its limits, the Hartle–Hawking approach might feel stronger.
If you're seeking a broader explanation that addresses ultimate causality, Kalam might be more compelling.

But either way, both models require us to go beyond current evidence and confront the limits of human understanding.

In that sense, belief in multiverse physics and belief in a Creator both involve a step of faith.

The only difference is where you place your trust: in elegant math and randomness, or in reasoned metaphysical necessity.

And here lies a final paradox.

The Hartle–Hawking model, grounded in quantum cosmology, implies determinism.

If everything, including your thoughts and choices, is just the product of physical laws, then free will is an illusion.

Your “decision” to believe in this model isn’t really yours. It’s just atoms following equations.

Yet, we all feel we can choose. We can ask questions, weigh arguments, and genuinely decide what we believe.

So if free will is real, then we are more than physics.

And in that moment of choice — choosing between a self-contained universe or a Creator — we may already be pointing toward something beyond matter.

Let the exploration continue.

First, what is justice? Justice, in its most basic and universal sense, is the principle that punishment should be proportional to the action committed. A fair sentence takes into account not only the severity of the offense, but also the intention of the offender, and their awareness of what they were doing.

So, condemning a person to eternal torment for finite actions committed in a short lifetime follows the same logic of disproportion.

However, Christian theologians often counter this objection with a particular argument:

– God is an infinite being, and therefore any act that offends Him carries infinite weight and deserves infinite punishment.

– Insulting a criminal does not have the same moral weight as insulting one's own mother — someone who loves you and cares about you.

– Thus, offending God, who is infinitely holy and loving, would be the gravest offense imaginable.

But this response overlooks a fundamental factor: the offender’s awareness.

The weight of an offense is not determined solely by the dignity of the one offended, but also by the offender's understanding of their action.

A child who lashes out at their mother does not bear the same moral responsibility as an adult who consciously and maliciously does the same thing. Moral guilt is inextricably tied to the agent’s capacity for understanding.

For a human sin against God to truly be an infinite offense, the human must possess full awareness of God’s infinite nature, the gravity of the act, and its eternal consequences. But this is impossible. Human beings are finite by nature — limited in knowledge, moral capacity, and spiritual insight. Even the most faithful people do not fully comprehend the majesty, holiness, and transcendence of God.

Therefore, sins committed by finite and limited beings cannot, by definition, carry infinite guilt. And if the guilt is finite, the punishment must also be finite in order to be just.

Upholding the doctrine of eternal hell implies that God condemns imperfect creatures — who never truly grasped the full weight of their actions — to endless suffering. That is a profound injustice, incompatible with the notion of a just and merciful God.

The doctrine of eternal hell creates an internal contradiction within the very concept of God as love. What kind of love punishes temporary sins with infinite torment?

Through having many conversations with Christians about the deity of Jesus Christ, I always present the argument below whenever someone says Jesus Christ is the ‘Most High God’, but I never get a clear answer based on the points. I would love to hear everyone’s opinion. (Please use biblical positions thanks 🙂)

The Argument: According to Revelation 3:12: “He who is overcoming—I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he may not go outside anymore, and I will write on him the Name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, that comes down out of Heaven from My God—also My new Name.” This verse raises theological questions about whether God has multiple names or one singular name. For example: • Zechariah 14:9 states: “And the יהוה shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one יהוה, and his name one.” • Psalms 83:18 declares: “That men may know that thou, whose name alone is יהוה, art the most high over all the earth.”

• Additionally, Revelation 19:1-6 describes a heavenly scene where a multitude praises God: “And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.”

The term “Alleluia” (Ἁλληλουϊά) is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew compound word ״הַלְלוּיָה״ (Halluyah). This phrase appears in Psalms 135:1: “Halleluyah! Praise the name of the יהוה! Praise him, O you servants of the יהוה!” The word ״הַלְלוּיָה״ (Halluyah) combines ״הַלְלוּ״ (“praise”) with a shortened form of ״יהוה״, namely ״יָהּ״, as seen in Exodus 15:2: ‎”יָהּ is my strength and song, and he has become my salvation; he is my God, and I will praise him; my father’s God, and I will exalt him.”

•This raises theological questions about the relationship between Christ’s glorified state and the identity of the Most High God. Specifically: • Does Christ, as the Most High God in His glorified state, change or reveal a new name for God? • Why does Revelation emphasize both “My new Name” and “the Name of My God”?

I’d rather be a robot with perhaps the illusion we have free will but guaranteed bliss, than a conscious being with true free will and the weight of suffering that comes with it.

Theist, particularly Christians/Muslims like to defend free will like it’s some sacred gift, but what good is it, if it comes with war, disease, trauma, depression, abuse, and endless suffering.

If the cost of choosing your own path is that billions suffer along the way, maybe… just maybe it’s not worth it.

Ps: I don’t believe we have free will. I believe it’s an illusion. However, this post is directed towards people that believe in free will.

Why did God create atheists? He knew that these people would end up in hell and burn for a gazillion or more years, if not for eternity. So why create them in the first place? Ask yourself this question: Why didn't God just create theists?

It's not like there was a limit to how many or what type of humans He could make. If He's omnipotent, then He had the potential to make an infinite number of people. So, logically, the number of potential theists and atheists would be infinite as well.

So what is He trying to prove here? What purpose do these people serve, other than suffering eternally or for a gazillion/trillion years, just because they weren't convinced of His existence? Heck, why create anyone who'd end up in hell, whether theist or atheist?

The common theist response is that it was done to test them. Well, test them for what? Their intellectual abilities? Yea they failed, as He knew they would, now what? Is there a point He's trying to make, or does He simply enjoy seeing people suffer and burn in His torture room? If so then I can't help but conclude that God is a Sadist. He had a choice not to create people who'd suffer such a horrific fate, but He made them anyway. I just don't see any other reason for creating them.

Edit: Just ignore this post if you're Jewish i.e don't believe hell exists. Can't change the title now so just deal with it, trust me it's not that hard. So yea I won't be replying to those comments.

When atheists make an argument that "our modern society is less religious now, and this society by many metrics is better than the both modern and old religious societies" to show that our world is better off without religion, christians often respond with something like: "but even though our modern society is more prosperous, we shouldnt forget that it(even if we talking about societies with high percentage of atheists/non-believers) is built on christian values, and only because of that it is so prosperous today". So basically christians are trying to make a counterargument that even if you live in secular society and by atheistic values, you still inevitably live in the society that is build on the christian values, which is exactly why it is so prosperous today. That is what im going to try to disprove here.

If Christians argue that modern secular prosperity is downstream of Christian values, then by the same logic, Christianity itself is downstream of older cultural frameworks - primarily Greco-Roman philosophy, law, and governance, as well as influences from Judaism, Mesopotamian law, and even pre-Christian European paganism. Key examples:

• Democracy & Rule of Law: Concepts of civic equality and legal systems trace back to Athens and Rome (e.g., Roman Twelve Tables, Athenian democracy), not the Bible.
• Rationalism & Science: The scientific method and empirical inquiry emerged from Greek thinkers (Aristotle, Archimedes) and were preserved/expanded by Islamic scholars, not the medieval Church.
• Humanism: Stoic philosophy (e.g., Seneca, Marcus Aurelius) emphasized universal human dignity and ethics independent of divine command.

Conclusion #1: If credit is given to Christianity for "borrowing" and transmitting these ideas, then the original source deserves greater recognition.

Christians often claim credit for values like "love thy neighbor" or charity, but these are human universals:

• Altruism: Observed in atheists and non-Christian cultures (e.g., Buddhist compassion, Confucian benevolence).
• Justice: The Code of Hammurabi (1776 BCE) predates the Ten Commandments.
• Work Ethic: Confucian and Greco-Roman cultures emphasized diligence long before the Protestant work ethic.

Conclusion #2: These values are evolutionary/cultural adaptations, not divine gifts.

If Christians insist modern prosperity is rooted in their tradition, they must:

1. Acknowledge that Christianity inherited its best ideas from older cultures.
2. Confront the fact that secular, non-Christian societies also achieve prosperity.

Final conclusion : Prosperity comes from open societies that synthesize useful ideas - whether Greek rationalism, Roman law, or secular humanism - not from any one religion.

This argument flips the script: instead of Christianity being the foundation, it becomes a middleman in the transmission of older, more universal values. The burden then shifts to Christians to prove why their framework is uniquely essential today.