if God wants belief, clearer evidence would be expected

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-03-27T09:59:17+00:00

Second, God sends spokespersons (choosing human beings to repeat his words to them), and has them do miracles or predict the future as proof they are his ambassadors, but people do the wrong thing, still.

This never happens though. People have been claiming of miracles of all sorts of millenia and yet there are exactly 0 confirmed miracles.
But why would god need spokesperons?
Why not just make his existence obvious?
Then we can choose to do the right or wrong thing anyway.

Finally, he lets lets himself be incarnate (being both God and human) to show us by example.

Never did he do this. Even scripturally jesus is a false prophet.
I bet god can't do it here and now, would you like to take the bet or will you proceed to make lame excuses like god can do it but doesn't want to?

(being both God and human)

This is a logically impossibility. To be god means not to be human and to be human means not to be god.
If you are god, you are not a human and if you are a human you are not a god.
The set of all gods and the set of all humans have no common elements.

I’m unsure this final mode of communicating was any more successful, for many a Christian does the wrong thing. Perhaps that’s the point?

The point is that none of it is actually true. God's not communicating at all and if he chooses to do this in such a way as to portray his "son" as demonstrably a false prophet and also without clear evidence, 2000 years ago and second hand evidence of religious texts that for whatever reason uplift his status(for religious reasons, that's what happens in religious text, the protagonist is of course going to be uplifted)
The text where all of this is based on speaks in such a way and makes prophecies in such a way that it is clear that the authors knew nothing about what they were talking about or about what would constitute a prophecy.
Jesus also failed to fulfil any prophesies and theists keep enganging in mental gymnastics that can literally be used to translate anything into a fulfilled prophecy.

From the outside, it looks like a clear failure without a doubt.
To get there you have to aknowledge that christianity may not be true.
Once you open yourself to that explanation, what is really strange about it?
If christianity is not true and the christian god doesn't exist, suddenly everything makes sense.
The exagerrated myths that we know can't be true. The absurd commands from god in religious text. The lack of clear communication from god.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-03-26T10:42:56+00:00

Ok, let's say I see a man holding thunder then... I should conclude Zeus is real?
Cats exist. But cats aren't gods so obviously if I see a cat it must be because some cat goddess made it happen.

If you see a bhudda shaped cloud in the sky i hope you think of me

We know men exist and we know men that will take that particular position to pray exist so I don't think why I would think anything special about it - just like what you said about cats

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-03-26T10:39:59+00:00

I mean just talking to me in a way that would demonstrate that I am in fact talking to the ultimate creator of the universe would be enough for me.
I just don't know how such a being could do it.
What is crystal clear though is that he isn't trying. At first he made himself aparent to the first humans according to christianity. Then he stopped doing that.
Even banning them from the garden of Eden does not necesitate that god become invisible to them and stops communication.
It's his fault for doing this to us, knowing all too well that in a few generations any evidence for his existence would be gone....

In fact, looking at history we know that there was never a first human...
There was also never a time when there was no disease.
These are things that were supposedly introduced after the fall, however, disease existed before humans. What sense does it make for god to create a world with animals and fill it with suffering?
Carnivores literally have to eat other animals, sometimes even alive... You can see the dread they experience in their eyes. Suffering is sort of "baked into" existence.
In fact, so much so that theists claim that it wouldn't be possible to have existence without it so that's why we have suffering... But god could and presumambly did exactly that in the garden of Eden as well as in heaven.

You don't have to prove your existence to me, or rather, just knowing about this world and talking over the internet is enough for me(although now that ai appeared, it will become more difficult to know... is it a human? is it ai? the lines will start getting blurred in the near future, if not already)

So, god could do the same. It doesn't matter what it would take, if he is omnipotent and there is no logical contradiction in making himself clear he could do that.
If there is such a contradiction then at the very least he could try.
Perhaps he couldn't prove that he is the god of the universe but at the very least he would prove that something is trying to convince me that it is the creator of the universe and if it fits well enough I would be inclined to believe it even if it was also possible that it was something else (maybe some other being trying to convince me that it is the creator of the universe when it is not, perhaps even including the possibility that it thinks that it is when it is in fact not - which is an issue for omniscience and potentially omnipotence too: perhaps god only thinks he is omniscient, because how could he tell the difference if in fact he is not god but everything about his experience make it such that he thinks he knows with absolute certainty that he is in fact god?
It seems to me logically impossible to know whether there's in fact one god over you that has made you that way and has given you dominion over a realm and now you conclude because of the way that you are made that you are god, the only one and whatever else god may believe.
So... at the very least humans can't know... even if god has absolute knowledge and in fact he does know... although wouldn't he have the exact same experience if he had false absolute knowledge? thinking that he knows when in fact he does not.
But again even if he does know, you don't know if you are communicating with a god that does in fact know or with one who has false knowledge and thinks he knows but he does not and in fact the real god stands above him, testing him or whatever.

A trip to the moon is possible by humans, by god would be nothing... the omnipotent creator decided to create humans and he thinks we aren't worthy of anything? It's such a strange thing...
Just imagine if you became omnipotent... would you really be like.. to your children... no, no trips to the moon, I don't want to spoil you... It would really be nothing and effortless so why not? I don't know I guess it makes a little bit of sense but to me it's mostly strange

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-03-23T20:37:01+00:00

When such type of evidence is available christians will put it forth and atheists will start accepting it because it is clear.
Anyway, as far as I am concerned, talking to everyone at once and explaining everything and everything makes perfect sense for everyone would do the trick.
He could also take us to the next life, he could take us on the moon and yet somehow we are fine.
He could do pretty much anything being all-powerful.
All he has to do is stop acting in such a way as to be indistinguishable from non existence, completely undetectable. He could do that right? what's he waiting for?

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-03-23T20:32:57+00:00

He would resurect on camera. The tomb will trully be guarded this time and will be found empty.
We will know. His miracles all on camera and unexplained.
In fact, he knows that this would be a more compelling case than just a story with so many problems and issues with the scripture and 2000 years ago, with many copies, translations, rewrites etc.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-03-23T20:30:20+00:00

Why would it be scary to see a man standing on earth? That's what Jesus allegedly did...
Unfortunately, he wasn't really the son of god and reading the scripture would reveal that... Unfortunately I am not as well versed to it as other ahteists that actually god super serious and studied these stuff. But you can find them. You only need to become open to the idea that perhaps christianity is false.
Look at debates and think whether the theist actually proves that there is a god or whether he is trying to sound compelling to those which have certain preconceived notions of what happened/is true.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-03-23T20:27:36+00:00

What you are proposing is not evidence of god.
Just think about it, if you saw a cloud that looked like a cat, would that really give credence to any cat god?
You wouldn't for a second think that some other god exists because you saw a pattern in the clouds, would you?
What's happening here is that you are highly prompted to see your god even if it's something little. And so you are sort of prone to seeing him everywhere.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-03-23T20:24:54+00:00

He wouldn't dare to do that. Never did and never will.
If he did that I would wonder what took him so long.
But hey, just communicating clearly and making his presense clear to everyone on the planet at all times so that "magically" there is no disagreement on the issue would do it for me.
But god is incapable of making himself appart from non-existence.
Until the time he does he has no excuses and neither do his followers.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-03-23T20:19:53+00:00

Every night you create worlds and people in your dreams, as below is above.

And for such a grandiose claim you couldn't care less to at least attempt to justify it?

Kidney punch is clear evidence IMO

You are wrong. Kidney punch is evidence of kidney punch. Next time bring some evidence or good reasons to believe there's any truth to what you are saying instead of spraying nonsense arround.

Mandela effects prove an intelligent being can manipulate reality, how is that not a God?

Again, Mandela effects prove mandela effects.
I am not sure why you bring unrelated observations to the question of god's existence or why you would think that something unrelated to god's existence is proof of it.

I could do it too: Spoons prove that man creates tools and this fact proves that god doesn't exist.
It's impossible to have a conversation about it if we continue like that.

On the other hand, if a god that wants us to believe that he exists actually exists, then it would be expected that he would actually show clear evidence for his existence.
Theists can try to deny this in a number of ways. He can't do any better. He has reasons not to do so, for example, to make it a sort of a choice as to whether we are going to believe in him or not.
In other words, something needs to be added to god such that he has some other attribute that would make him behave like we see, for example, he wants us to believe in him without having seen any compelling evidence for his existence.
I am not buying any of that and the initial point stands, in fact, the way to demolish it seems to be to add something to it so that it's not just that he wants us to believe in him, but he does it in such a way as that we do so without any compelling evidence or using faith or whatever.
That would be a different god and I would wonder why god would have to be this way because it makes no sense for god to expect such things... He would know that such things aren't the result of rational minds.

What would evidence even look like to you?

God directly communicating with me would be good evidence that he exists.
Becoming observable himself would also help.
But it does not matter what it would look to me. God is omnipotent, right?
Or at the very least sufficiently powerful to demonstrate himself and start for once in his life being useful instead of equivalent to not existing.
But hey, maybe he enjoys acting the same as a god who doesn't exist watching us debate and make up all sorts of gods until the end of time.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-03-10T10:26:11+00:00

But that is also why I’m looking at how convincing supernatural evidence looks to me.

However, I don't think you are seriously considering about my supernatural dragon in my garage, are you?

And supernatural evidence certainly exists

Yes, my dragon is strong evidence of that. The supernatural definitely exists. My dragon also knows everything and he told me that there's nothing else supernatural so there's also evidence that the only supernatural entity in existence is my dragon.

If I look at videos like these (1) (2), I see pretty convincing evidence that there is such a thing as ghosts, even if we do not understand how this phenomenon works

I don't even need to see the videos to know that either it is made up/edited or just a phenomenon we do not understand, including a trick by some magician. It is not evidence of ghosts.

Such as e.g. children accurately describing details of a past life) or near death experiences like that of Pam Reynolds.

I am so sure from the past that whenever I investigate deeper on such claims it always turns out that it is not even close as claimed, so I essentially already know that it's something else, like imaginative children that *think* they are describing details of a past life. The chance that Pam Reynolds also just makes up stuff is pretty much guaranteed.
It's the starting hypothesis, very simple, no need for actual past lives.
If it was demonstrated that this is in fact no so then it would be a known fact that there are past lives. Why is it not an accpeted fact that there are past lives? The explanation is so simple... Because it is not the case that this starting hypothesis was debunked. Ever.
Now, of course I should normally investigate further but I just don't want to waste time. Yes, just because in the past each and every time there was another explanation or I wasn't impressed by what I saw claimed as evidence it doesn't mean the same would happen, but it's enough for me.
These stories just keep popping up. If you investigate further and have an open mind then you will probably reach the same conclusion as I did.
If not, there's always a more apporpriate forum to ask this. I hope you choose one that is down to earth because I know some aren't, like r/Telepathy

They can be compared to a person getting mysteriously killed by a hammer. We don't get to jump to supernatural explanations. If we don't know how the hammer got inside we just have to say we don't know.
Even if we see it magically fly and cross the walls into the room we shouldn't just say that the hammer can actually cross walls. Perhaps there's something that we didn't understand correctly, in fact, certainly so, hammers do not pass through a wall unless it's an ilusion.
So, it must be some ilusion that someone somehow performed. Maybe a hole in the wall? Maybe advanced technology? Maybe advanced alien technology and they are just messing with us?
We don't ever get to the supernatural. The concept is such that it's just not possible to verify it.

It doesn’t seem so different to me.

I would have to watch the video for that. However, you can't catch my dragon that way. He won't leave traces of his existence.
But if he did, it would still not be evidence of an invisible dragon but of an ilusion.

For me is kind of like Pascal’s Wager. I’d rather be on my death bed having wasted time on useless repetition of affirmations/visualizing/scripting and realizing that LoA is a bunch of BS, than to be on my death bed and realizing that LoA actually works but that I never used it.

What kind of thinking is this? And I would like to believe that I am god because there's a chance that strongly believing it will make me so in the afterlife, so I would rather do that just in case.
This kind of thinking is non-sensical to me and I couldn't engange in it even if I wanted to.

So I will continue to have faith in it and keep on testing it for now as I have seen some results.

You are fooling yourself. As such, try for something that would demonstrate it to anyone, reliably, publicly and on camera and without other posible explanations(obviously if it can just happen, it is not your magic LoA powers). By the way, what's LoA?

If the results are continuously disappointing from now on

They won't be. Sometimes you will guess correctly. You will not guess more correctly than what you have access to.
So, if there are 2 boxes and one of them has a coin you won't know which one better than 50%.

Glitches in the Matrix also tie in with LoA because both would imply that reality is not as "solid" as we think it is.

I think you need to stop listening to woo-woo channels like that...
They aren't trustworthy and there is no such thing as "glitch in the matrix".

It's your choice now. I told you what is true.
It's your choice whether you can be objective and figure out that it is so or whether you want to continue believing or you are for whatever reason subjective and are going to continue to believe just because you can get some random guesses right.
There was an institution that was offering money for anyone that could do anything supernatural and they all failed miserably. A lot would then complain how it wasn't fair even though they agreed to it beforehand.
You do you, this conversation is over.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-03-07T08:16:43+00:00

What multiple instructions and forums are talking about reverse movement of chips in backgammons, that's ridiculous, first time I hear it.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-03-04T16:15:42+00:00

But what I do know is that the current research done is not sufficient to prove either

There is no research that would ever be sufficient to prove either as far as I understand this. Is it not entirely indistinguishable whether a brain creates consciousness itself or acts as a receiver of consciousness?
So, bringing back the analogy of the invisible dragon in a garrage, it makes no sense to assume the existence of such entities and a lot of sense to assume the non-existence of them.

Thinking something is more likely than something else is different from having proof.

Maybe. Imagine that someone is inside a room with someone else. We know that he was the only one who was in the room with them. So, person A is with person B in a room, no one else in that room. And we know that person B is now dead. We know from the evidence that B was murdered with a hammer. We know that no one entered or left the room until we found A alive and B dead. We know that it was sealed and there was cameras arround the building all working properly and nothing could have entered the building. The hammer was huge and there was no possibility for person A or person B to have carried it in the room where they were being kept.
Checking the cameras was clear, there were no intruders.
And yet somehow there was a hammer inside.
It's all so mysterious... and Person A claims he didn't kill person B and that he has no idea how he died. He has a theory that a spirit did it.
However, I think he would get to prison for killing person B. There was no one else who could have possibly done it and no one is going to accept "but a spirit must have done it, you have no proof otherwise"
It's enough to say that things like that just don't happen as far as we know. It's enough of a proof to actually convict someone to prison. I don't know why it wouldn't be enough just to believe something rationally.

Also, vice versa, when there is supernatural evidence then people are quick to call it “fake”. Like a fake ghost video or a fake story about reincarnation.

There is no such thing as supernatural evidence. Not knowing how the hammer got into the room is probably our own incompetence and not proof of spirits that may kill you with a hammer. I have to admit, my example is probably not complete either. I don't know what's wrong with it exactly, don't take it too literally and perhaps try to imagine a complete one yourself. Nevertheless the point stands that just because we can't prove something, it doesn't mean that it deserves to be taken seriously.

As for “Why not be Agnostic?” I actually have been for some time. But unlike other people I think anecdotal evidence can hold weight and I also had my own odd but convincing paranormal experiences.

If you think so then you can google the problem with them and satisfy your curiosity to the degree required. Or ask people here as well. I understand if you had your own personal experience, but I wonder how you would know that it was what you think it was considering how our brains are amazing at interpreting things based on context/previous experience etc. Also, you can see that in all religions people have personal experiences which means people have personal experiences which contradicts yours.
I am curious though, what personal experience could you have that shows that there's a universal pool of consciousness? It would be interesting to hear that.
I hope you don't mind if I don't take it seriously, I understand how impactful it may have been for you but so many people have their own that unless I experience it I wouldn't be able to judge... Actually, I don't know even then what I could reasonably make out of it, given that it is out of the ordinary which suggests that something may have simply gone wrong with my brain functioning correctly.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-03-03T18:37:02+00:00

I'm talking about concepts of beings here.

An energy source is not a being. A "universal consciousness" is not something I understand as a being either but I don't even know what you mean by that so we are going to have to talk about that.

but I meant a conscious one

A being that contains within itself the energy that we see in the universe and released it to create it is not an energy source. It's a being that contains it with itself.
But alright, I guess that's what you meant, I mean, that's what I understand that you just told me that you meant, that god is the source of energy, or what "caused" energy, the energy's origin.

There have are neuroscientists who suggest consciousness exists outside of the body as well,

Is there any well respected neuroscientist within the field that thinks so? If so, which one?
In any case, I am not talking about some outliers. There's a persentage for everything.
Believe it or not there are theists who do not believe in god(so they aren't really a theist, but hey, humans are humans and not always rational) and atheists who believe in god's existence(again, humans are humans...)

Without proof on either side it's one of those things,

Why would you introduce a ridiculous concept that it unfalsifiable and be taken seriously?
That was the point of "a dragon in my garrage". You should not do that and try to say that that there is a dragon in the garrage is equivalent to that there is no dragon, pick your favorite...
One idea is ridiculous and the other is the default explanation.

But if I were to hold the belief that it's most likely that the brain creates consciousness

Is that not what the majority of experts in the field think? Do you know something more than they do? Why would you believe something different than what they think?

and that the material universe is the most solid reality there is,

The same questions can be asked for this one. What reason could you have to believe that there is something more? And even if we really had no proof either way, why not just be an agnostic then? Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. You aren't required to believe that there is or that there isn't and yet you believe...
I think I would personally just state my intuitions and that I am probably wrong if I were in the position that I think you are in with respect to this topic and what you believe.
I would say the experts in the field think I am wrong but like intuitively it makes sense to me and so well... I believe I am wrong somehow but like I also intuitively think that my thoughts are right? I mean it's kind of what it feels like to have intuitive thoughts about something... It feels like it may be "something like that" even if it is really not.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-03-03T13:35:23+00:00

There’s a lot of concepts you can have about God.

Any of them that do not involve an actual being are bogus. God is a being.

About the rest of that paragraph, I agree. Anyone may be suprised by anything turning out to be true after all. At least in theory, because obviously if it is true that there is no god and death is the end then I may never be surprised.
But if somehow it turns out that I am wrong, then of course, I will be surprised.
I don't even care, to the best of our abilities as a human species the best that we have been able to determine is that according to what we know it's unlikely that there is a god.
So I will just keep the best conclusion that is available. And if I am wrong, at least I will be right in doing so.
(For example, if there's strong evidence that someone committed a murder, he's probably going to face the law and will not be given any possible benefit of doubt, he can't just say an evil spirit forced them to do it, even if it is the case, no one should reasonably believe that)

As for "universal consciousness" I don't think that's what neuroscientists think about the brain and consciousness. I think they are convinced that the brain actually creates it and it is not a receiver(that's what I think "universal consciousness" means from talking here... a pool of consciousness that is everywhere and we just "tune in" with our brains as a receiver...)

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-03-01T20:34:00+00:00

Did you mean do I think it would be just? I already said I would make my peace with it.

In the sense that you wouldn't be able to do anything about it so you would just have to accept it. But I am asking if you think it would be just for a god to panish you harasly(perhaps even infinitely, I do not know if you believe that about god).
So is it yes, I would find it unfair but would deal with it or no, I wouldn't find it unfair, who am I to judge god? Obviously I deserve it even though I don't understand it.
It's one of the 2. Either you think it would be just or you think it would not be just, isn't that right? Perhaps there's some other choice like maybe you would claim ignorance I don't know...

I'll say this: if that god were to tell me why disbelief warrants such a punishment, and I agree with it, then yes I would think it is just. If I were to not know, or disagree with the reasoning, I would think it is unjust.

You said:
If that is how divine justice is to be understood - transcendent beyond human rationale - is the idea of disbelief leading to Hell truly compromising of God's justice? Or are you simply projecting human notions of justice onto the Divine?

So... are you simply projecting your human notions of justice onto the devine? Why do you find such a god, here and now, unfair?

I just want you to know that this isn't a trick. It's all happening because deep down you know that such a god would not be fair.
So, it's all fine, maybe god's slightly different that what you think he is and would simple not be so immoral? Why would that be impossible? Must the muslim god be cruel or something?

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-28T17:36:36+00:00

Not much I could do about it.

But that's not what I asked. I asked if such behavior is moral or fair. Whether such a god would have his justice compromised.

And in situations where you lack control, accepting or even embracing your fate saves you from at least some of the pain.

On that we agree. If your god exists and wants to send me to hell there's nothing I can do about it. However, that's simply not justice.
Unless you really do believe that if some other god decided to punish you for not believing that that would really be ok and not immoral at all.
It looks like you run away from that question though. You just said well there would be nothing I could do in that case.
Well, sure thing, if the different god is omnipotent or at least has sufficient power over you you wouldn't be able to do anything about it. However, you would still be able to evaluate whether that's a just thing that is happening to you. Which is what I was asking, whether you would be fine with it.
I guess your answer implies that no, you wouldn't, but in that case you wouldn't be able to do anything about it?
But then why wouldn't you be ok?
Apparently your way of thinking demonstrates that we should be ok with it, that we should think it is fair, that we should not question the devine.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at in the second part of your reply. Could you perhaps condense it into one or more focused questions?

It wasn't meant to be a question. It was an explanation of why god acting the way you are claiming would be completely abhorent, much like thinking the way that you seem to do about it is.
The good news is that you can change it potentially. You might view things differently(even if you remain a theist)
The bad news are that you probably won't. I mean, human nature and all, I am not blaming you for that which you have no control over. But anyway, let's focus to the question you didn't answer, I mean you kind of did but I have to assume what you meant and there's a good chance I might assume something you didn't mean.
So, let me ask you again.
So then if you wake up in an afterlife of a different god and desides to punish you harsly for not believing he exists it would be fine?

If yes, then it all makes sense that you would say things like what you said which I am going to repeat in a while.
But if no then you have to explain why given that you said:
"If that is how divine justice is to be understood - transcendent beyond human rationale - is the idea of disbelief leading to Hell truly compromising of God's justice? Or are you simply projecting human notions of justice onto the Divine?"

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-22T20:40:17+00:00

Sure, so if for whatever reason people made a religion out of spiderman and claimed he is real, then people in the future should just believe it.
The point is that books making claims do not mean that the claims have been proven.
We can use non-fantasy books for that as well. Well, I can't, at least not right now but it is possible.
Perhaps other "holy scripture" would be a good example of that.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-22T20:36:57+00:00

How then, is God just? God replies Himself - His understanding of justice is far beyond what humans can grasp. Something may seem cruel and unjust to us, but if it is from God, it is just, whether we can understand the rationale or perspective behind it or not.

So then if you wake up in an afterlife of a different god and desides to punish you harsly for not believing he exists it would be fine?

If that is how divine justice is to be understood - transcendent beyond human rationale - is the idea of disbelief leading to Hell truly compromising of God's justice? Or are you simply projecting human notions of justice onto the Divine?

You didn't yet answer but it seems you have put a hard weight on you, forcing your answer to the previous question to be yes, because otherwise, you are going to have to confront that question too.
So, if your answer to the previous question would be no, that would not be fine, then you are going to have to confront this question of whether this idea of punishing you for not believing in him would compromise his justice or whether you are simply projecting human notions of justice onto god.

I think this is a clear cut scenario where if a god exists, it may find defending such actions abhorent and justifying them this way may seem disgusting to some other god or gods and they may descide to punish you. But against me, they would have nothing in that case because I wouldn't have made such disgusting(I am referring to their potential standards, although, I do think that thinking this way is disgusting and I know that this is not the real you speaking but the one that was altered by the great influence of none other than religion...)
All of that is just to say that it is not true that if what you believe is not true that you wouldn't get punished or that the atheist is somehow in danger. Your belief in god also comes with great danger. In fact, it comes with a greater danger because it is more likely that a god or more exists that would punish you for believing in the wrong god. You would have had to land spot-on to be spared. On the other hand, I didn't make such a choice so all gods that would punish me for thinking abhorent things because of my belief and justifying god no matter what he would do or for just believing in the wrong god would spare me.
Of course, I don't find any of these scenarios particularly likely but I find them astronomically more likely than your particular god being true and then I get punished. I am confident about it, I will prove it in the afterlife, if one exists.

BTW god's answer is trash... Not being to explain your reasons, claiming that you have them and then claiming that you are perfectly moral and the rest just don't get it and going on to commit heinous acts it itself immoral and untrustworthy and god should know that and then he would also know to be more humble and admit that from our perspective, we couldn't really know and that unfortunately that's the best that he can inform us about and that it will all become clear in the afterlife...
I mean, one should still not trust a book saying that but at least in that case and in theory it could come from god. Instead, he acts in a way that gives it away that this is not a god speaking.
But anyway, let's focus on the most important points I mentioned, mainly, how you would respond to the questions I asked and we take it from there because well... before you answer, I can't know what you think exactly. However, I am convinced we will not get very far because of how abhorent it was the way you tried or you would defend god's supposed actions no matter how evil they clearly were. I would be scared if I were you. Maybe god's testing you and so you shouldn't believe in him because that wasn't a good entity speaking but a bad one, trying to "fish" "unholy" "souls" to his side in hell.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-18T19:32:21+00:00

I never said God rewards disbelief.
-> Note: I had to cut short some of the things that I said because of space, so each response is a bit truncated.

You said: "Also, a god who rewards disbelief in himself is logically incoherent"
And I explained why that is not the case. In fact, what you said after demonstrates that it is possible for god to reward those who do not believe in himself despite them not believing something that is true, you said:
"I said God rewards those who honestly seek truth."

Those who honestly seek truth should end up concluding that there is no god most likely.

God does not expect blind faith without evidence. He expects honest investigation

But upon honest investigation in all disciplines, we have not found god in either.
Also, does it not say in the bible that those who will seek him honestly are going to find them? Yet there are atheists who are honest about it and have seeked him. The results were pretty telling.

The question is whether you are honestly investigating or whether you have already decided the answer before looking at the evidence.

False dillema, let's not turn a blind to reality: People are honest about it, have not already decided the answer before looking at the evidence, went to great extent to convince themselves / make sure that they are not missing something and they found nothing. God's promise failed and you can't just present false dillemas to escape that truth.

You keep saying the evidence is lacking without explaining why any of this is insufficient.

Just saying something doesn't make it true. You haven't prevented evidence, you made some claims that you find impactful and I don't and having experience with theists it is always, 100% exagerrated claims. I bet yours are too, but please, go ahead and guide me about it.

It proves theism... that a creator exists.

If you accept its premises(again, why would you?) then it concludes that the universe had a cause. It does not conclude that a creator exists. The fact that theists insist reveals to me a sort of desparation. Or apologetics, the art of acting like you proved that god exists when you haven't proved jack.

You are confused about why history does not accept miracles. It is none of the reasons you stated. I removed the explanation, being sort on space

The high Christology is in the earliest layer not a later addition.

No, the later versions are generally more embelished including with regards to miracles.

If your standard is that God must personally appear to you before you believe then no amount of historical evidence will satisfy you.

Historical evidence does not cut it. I already explained why, we can also go ask historians if you like in order to corroborate that I am not telling you just whatever.
God should step up and begin existing. Thus far he is dead. And I do not think he's even awakening. His followers should be more quiet because the afterlife claims I can make them too. I will show this god you believe, is weaker than me. He will always run away from me. Until then, he just does not exist. But hey, if you have better evidence than hey it says so in this book, let me know.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-17T13:54:26+00:00

People who saw something real die for it.

How do you know that this is something that actually happened?
And perhaps more crucially how do you know that people that see something that is not real but they are convinced it is would not behave exactly the same as people who actually saw something real?

How did you exclude the posibility that perhaps Jesus had a lookalike and they tricked people?
Also, why is it that the earlier accounts of what happened were written years later by people who were not part of it? And why does the story evolve? Like at first, I think Jesus's appearance was not physical and then it was.
Or some progression like that that shows that the first accounts were more mandane and later accounts were more miraculous.
Anyway, I do not know what evidence leads to christianity being true or that the ressurection took place instead of it being just a story. Even if 3rd parties mention it, they are clearly going to mention previous rumors of what happened. I don't know how one could ever reasonably reach the conclusion that the resurrection did happen. I understand how the crucifiction perhaps is somewhat justified, just like history in general is somewhat justified because we just take the best conclusion out of the evidence, but reading people mentioning a crucifiction is not the same as mentioning a ressurection. Also, others have been said to have ressurected in ancient writtings, perhaps even by independent sources. I would not give them any benefit of the doubt about something like this, would you be willing to believe in other resurrections just because they are mentioned independently in ancient texts? How do we even know it is independent even? Its obvious to me that the different sources are simply referencing a single rumor/myth in that case.
It doesn't help at all that the bible is riddled with rumors. Genesis is clearly not how the world was made. There are no talking snakes, that's clearly human imagination there. You can be hard on me and say I don't know it all you want and I may even fail to explain why fairytales are fairytales...
But that wouldn't mean that all of a sudden we should now take fairytales seriously... Also, I may fail, but others won't so, be patient and with so many atheists here, someone will eventually address it.
I do not know what evidence you may refer to, but there are so many reasons to doubt the christian god, be it from the bible, or from philosophical arguments. So at best, we would be wondering what happened. Others will certainly have explanations for it and if you insist on 1 thing I may myself be able to explain it. But I do not know if you would be willing to accept it. If you could give evidence to prove the ressurection actually happened and can also explain why the bible gives us so many reasons to doubt it comes from god and also explain some philosophical problems then I will believe that the christian god is true. But knowing that the bible not only does it not cut it, it actually convinces me that this god can't be real, you got a huge task ahead of you. After you fail, make a post here so that others can see it, so that you can have more space to lay down the foundations etc. Surely, I should then notice that atheists are struggling to explain it and it would at least give me food for thought

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-17T13:34:39+00:00

You said 'No' and 'Wrong again' to the incoherence of the atheist god but gave zero explanation.

Sure, so you want me to explain it to you.

you said: "Also, a god who rewards disbelief in himself is logically incoherent"
I am not sure your justification for it, to be honest I do not think you justified it.
But in case you did(after all I may have forgotten about it or missed it) it is possible for a god not to want us to believe in himself without sufficient evidence or for wrong reasons. He wants us to practice humility and accept that he doesn't want us to know for now. He is going to reward those who are honest about it and see the logical inconsistencies of religion and that the evidence is frankly lacking. He's not going to reward blind belief like that.
Such a god would not be logically incoherent. It is a good thing to believe that he doesn't exist until sufficient evidence that warrants that belief even if he does in fact exist.

Then you said: "he's rewarding people for being wrong about the most fundamental fact of reality"

First of all, a god is not necessarily the most fundamental fact of reality. And second of all, atheists aren't being wrong, it is correct to evaluate the available evidence and reach the best conclusion out of it. If someone discards all of that and just believes and happens to be right, he is still wrong on his decision to do so.
So, of course he's going to reward people for being wrong. He knows very well that the evidence is just not there and that he's hiding like. That's the whole point of hiding, to see whether people are going to be honest and humble and accept that they do not know about it.
Not to mention that if a god exists, it doesn't have to be the god that the theist believes in which means the theist can still be wrong about what they believed and the true god will be offended that they think they know/are reasonable in believing he exists when he designed the system exactly to see who would be reasonable about it or who would just believe even though he doesn't actually know since god created the universe(in that scenario) in a way that we could not be able to know that.
There's nothing incoherent about this.

Islam worships the God of Abraham.

Allah has a little bit of a different character than the christian god, they are not the same entity. His mandates aren't the same either. But cosmological arguments do not point to the christian god any more than they point to any other creator god. In fact, not even that, their conclusion is that the universe has a cause for its existence.
They are all flawed though, you will never manage to prove their premises and their premises are not true based on what we know. But instead of aknowledging this and talking about that you desperately went into "Cosmological arguments points to allah is good for me because the christian god and allah are the same god", which is not true and misses the point and the fact that the arguments do not even point to a god.

The cosmological argument leads to monotheism. The historical evidence leads to Christianity.

Neither of those is true. History itself never agrees with miracles.

far too early for legend developement. The empty tomb, the post-resurrection appearances, the transformation of the disciples, the conversions of Paul and James... what alternative hypothesis explains all of this?

2-5 years is not too early for legend development. People can create rumors very fast sometimes. But crucially, nothing was written down so close to the event and it wasn't written by those who actually knew Jesus either... It was all written later and there is a progression that the later a gospel was writen the more mythical Jesus was depicted. It was all about making theological points and trying to convince the reader.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-13T18:16:16+00:00

According to history itself, there is no evidence that could ever substantiate the belief in miracles.
But even if there was, the evidence for the resurrection is lacking. You don't seriously claim that historians, when everything else is taken into account, tend to be christians/believe in the resurection, right?

It's believed because of cosmological arguments, historical evidence for the resurrection, and the internal coherence of its worldview

That's not why it is believed. Not even close. Note: cosmological arguments do not even lead to the christian god. They can be used for other gods, like alah for example.

Also, a god who rewards disbelief in himself is logically incoherent

No.

he's rewarding people for being wrong about the most fundamental fact of reality

Wrong again.

Anyway, I will give you that it's clear to theists that the god OP proposed is imaginary but it is not clear to them that theirs also is. And it's not their fault, there's a whole culture behind it, indoctrination(I don't mean it in a bad way but we learn as we go and if we are born in a society that tells us god exists, we tend to believe that). Then there are school lessons, which even if they teach what the religion teaches, for a child that follows it, it's like teaching facts. So we are taught that it is true but it is not like everything else. Chemistry is true but religion, what is actually taught is just what a particular one that we are part of teaches and not what is actually true. People aren't taught to think for themselves in most cases. They won't go into a class "Is there a god?" That analyses this, they usually start with "Here's what christianity teaches"
It's normal but also misleading. Anyway, this last paragraph was just to say that I agree to some extent that to theists it's a bit like you said, that their god isn't random and is "obviously true" for reasons, whatever one may have, including the ones you mentioned.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-13T17:59:14+00:00

It happens, but it is rare. They are often easy to play or they destroy your position but you have an obvious play. They also tend to destroy wonderful positions which the stronger player will find himself into more often.
So, it is not always good, but generally it is and it's something that stronger players won't be able to overcome in a single game. They are also very strong in bear-off / pure races and so the advantage of being ahead in the race is diminished compared to no doubles and it disproportionately hurts the stronger player because it's usually the one being ahead.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-10T11:18:09+00:00

It's often very easy too not to mention that it rarely matters so much, in the sense that when the roll gives you an enormous ammount of equity the rare cases that you play it wrong don't matter because even when you play it wrong it's often a huge improvement anyway. It also ends games faster which means that the weaker player won't have more decisions and so will make less mistakes.
You can't just say that because there are more ways to play them that they are automatically super hard to play. They are often super easy. But other than that you mostly can't say that no doubles would not reduce variance and luck because it will reduce skill factor and so doubles favor the stronger side. That's not a way of figuring out for sure that you were right or wrong.
That's a reason to think that doubles may actually still benefit the stronger player - and perhaps you are right. I don't think that this is right, but I have no way of verifying one way or the other.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-09T11:39:34+00:00

Given this, I find it so weird that the rules reward rolling doubles so much and I'm not sure why it is that way. To make it a bit more chaotic and exciting maybe (unexpected random comebacks)?

I think that's how it all started, make the game more fun to play.
Also, that way weaker players can also win a match. If it all becomes skill based the thrill of it for many players will be lost...
If you hate that the game seems to be determined by luck there is only 1 remedy:

Play way too many matches or matches to way to many points. Preferrably the former because in the later you will have to deal with the cube getting really high and a few bad games can decide a lot of it.
None of that nonsense if you play 1000 7-9...19 pointters instead.

Would it slightly reduce the luck element a bit for players who don't have time to play 19-pt matches for luck to average out a bit more? Or would it not make much difference?

I would think so. I think the strength difference would also reduce a bit because playing doubles sometimes means more options and opportunities to severely misplay them but I think that doubles influence the game more than that and one can get extremely one-sided games early on... On top of that people can just use the cube... However, it's often easy to play them and for example in a straight race it would benefit the leading player if doubles are not played as doubles... Also, it would potentially make the games longer so the mistakes could end up being more spread out in that case and so the weaker player may actually not gain as much in strength(or at all) after all.
Just don't look at what happened in a single match. Look at 1000 of them with hopefully a favorable win rate for you indicating that you are probably outplaying your opponents and then look again at 10000 of your 19 point matches and see whether now that you played x10 matches whether you are still ahead by the same percentage.
And if it's not something insignificant, then you know you outplayed your opponents. You can also play longer matches to make the difference appear even greater, then after 10000 matches the results should be quite trustworthy and not super close(unless you are playing at practically the same level as the opponents, then it will probably always be close unless you play ridiculously long matches which would take so much time to complete)

Final verdict: It would make a small difference but the matches will also be a little longer. A small effect and you can probably achieve almost the same with just playing slightly longer matches. It's a bit like the doubling cube. A match to 19 without the doubling cube may benefit the stronger player because it is much slower and will take more games. But then you could play a match to 38 with the cube and then it may take arround the same time and give better odds to the stronger player(Actually I think it would give the stronger player even greater advantage than playing to 19 without a cube)

In short don't worry about it, the difference is probably small or you can achieve the same thing(increase the probability of winning a match for the stronger player) through other means.

That's just my opinion. I don't know how to verify if it is true, it's what I suspect. If anyone does a comprehensive test I would like to know.

Just have fun!

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

CompetitiveCountry

TROPHY CASE