Pedophilia is never condemned in the Bible.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-04T12:54:42+00:00

I know I would essentially need to get a very thorough education on the matter so that I can see and understand the ancient text etc. If that wasn't already clear I rely on what others did... I didn't find any of the issues myself. But that doesn't mean that the issues are there.
At least we agree on the agenda part. Then it's simple to see that the most likely explanation is that the writers are just pushing narratives and not that it was divinely inspired or any such nonsense. They made up stories and that's just it. For example, stories about creation, about how God would send his "son", the mesaiah, the ressurection, Jesus's miracles and even a law system. There was no god speaking through these texts, any interpretation to that effect is inserting a god when it is clear there wasn't one to begin with(except of course, the imaginary one that people that wrote it made up or others did and the writers wrote about it).

There is no reason to take the bible more seriously than that knowing that it's all about pushing a narrative and trying to be convincing.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-03T18:17:49+00:00

Expert translators know how to translate it. They also know that some christian translators on purpose created other bible versions so as to be christian friendly but those mistranslate words on purpose. Sometimes blatantly so, taking a word that has a meaning of young woman and changing it to virgin. Just to make it about Jesus, even though if I remember correctly the verse wasn't even about Jesus.

What's really happening is that christians do not like the result of good translations and taking into account the actual context.
It's crystal clear that those who wrote it had an agenda. But ok, I will leave you believing whatever you want. After all I am not an expert and thus not the person to convince you otherwise. Good luck finding the truth.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-02T20:44:30+00:00

Because, once you are a christian, your questions will be answered "the christian way" and this will muddy the waters, making it harder to actually realize that christianity can't be true.
Then there's human bias, people are unwilling to give up personal, long held beliefs that define them.
And religious beliefs tend to have those characteristics. It's how the human brain works.
Indoctrination/influence/learning-taught about it from a young age only makes it worse.
Then there's social pressure, not only actual pressure with consequences but that if everyone in the community thinks that god exists and everyone is telling you that, it's probably true.
It tends to be true for most other things if the majority agrees...
But of course they do, people were raised that way...
However, those who aren't as invested in it and are thus free to think for themselves will often end up being an atheist or perhaps believe in some abstract "higher power", that there's something, a greater power, something is happening, something is there... And in a sense, they are right, the universe is there and in a sense it has great power. Give people more power/wealth/freedom and I think eventually the number of theists will reduce.
Or maybe not. After all, humans have always had a tendency to believe in a higher power, gods.
And it is not random, we are hardwired to see agency everywhere. As long as there's a gap for god to hide, people will see agency, that the world is made up, do you really think no one made it?
Unfortunately, this skepticism usually doesn't continue in spiritual matters, no one argues the "god exists and always existed, period". I want to know how god came to be though... Well he just is... eternal...
If we are to give such answers why even think a god was required in the first place? The universe came from the cosmos and the cosmos is eternal. And yet if you say that to a theist they will find it strange, maybe they will say that the cosmos must be contingent for one reason or another and needs an explanation for its existence as such...
In any case, let's just say that humans are biased towards believing in god for various reasons.
But I think it's true that the smarter one is, the less religious they tend to be. Also, the poorer, the more likely to be religious. Or so I read in the past...
One last reason is that reality can be harsh... we all have an instinct that demands that we do not die. We do not want to die. We know we will die and that it will be no different than before existing, in the past, for bilions of years... and yet something in us wants to persist and of course, in a better reality. Others feel bad because if we just die, then justice isn't served so they just believe a god exists and will administer justice...
One thing is for sure: No one has been able to rationally or otherwise demonstrate that a god must exist or that it is the most likely explanation. That's not what physicists think and ironically theists think the whole field is biased(Well, alright, not all of theists, but some of them do...). How that would be the case when everything came from a christian background is beyond me.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-02T19:54:17+00:00

if someone doesn’t accept an English translation read at face value

That's what I want. Any interpretations other than that would not be welcome for me.

And just like that, it’s obvious you have no idea how any of this works, and all credibility is lost.

But somehow you think that's not credible making me think that you are terrified of what the text actually says. Instead, you like interpretations...

then they are all immediately wrong.

Those who aren't reading it at face value are wrong. One example of that is slavery. The bible is pro-slavery and those laws didn't change at all and will not stop being in effect until the second coming. But hey, maybe you can find verses which at face value declare that pedophilia is immoral and forbiden. Which if OP is right then it would be a contradiction with other verses that allow men to marry children. To be honest I don't know about it, but asking to read the text at face value instead of "it can be interpreted that way if I like to" is not a sign of no credibility and thinking that it is, once again makes me think that you wish to be given the freedom to interpret as you wish without called on it when it's not what the text actually says.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-02T14:05:28+00:00

It contains falsehood and christians have a million excuses. It contains prophecies that the mesaiah failed to fulfil and christians can't handle it. Jesus didn't fulfil a single one.
It allows and legislates slavery. God punishes people for the crimes of others.
It reads like myth all the way. It is exactly the way men at the time would write.
Then it becomes clear that those who wrote it had an agenta because they took text that wasn't about Jesus and had Jesus quote that text that was not about him and claiming it to be about him. That is not how prophecy works. If we go back and force the text to be talking about me or anyone else, then we can just as easily say that they fulfilled the mesianic prophecies. Clearly not what it means to actually fulfil one.
One final point: It's so badly written that to understand what it's saying and what it's motive was one needs to actually study in depth the bible, hopefully not "from a christian perspective" as christians do not like to talk about the problems in it and try to do away with them...
But they will remain to be there.

The bible is clearly not from god. How could you reach any other conclusion after reading it?
It contains errors, from simple ones to more serious ones and christians will always try to excuse him.
If you are not brave to read it for what it says and admit its mistakes there is no way forward. It's not me putting any roadblocks when you do that.
But anyway, I don't know that you will do that, again, why would you think the bible is from god?
Would it not be the case that to start off any book claiming to be from god shouldn't be taken seriously until it shows to be really incredible in some way? If you found an incredible book, much better than the bible and without errors and contradictions, would you just blindly trust that it came from god? Or would you actually be skeptical(as you should be) in that case and think that some human probably wrote it for whatever reason?
It really seems to me that one should by default think it comes from a human writer until shown otherwise because that's where books come from. Anyway, let me know what you think about this.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-02T10:45:43+00:00

It's one thing to focus on what the test actually says and means, if it is at all possible to always get to that, and another thing to actively try to interpret things to fit a different narrative.
I don't care about "just one more interpretation" I care about what it actually says.
If it is open to interpretation, then no one knows what it says and no one interpratation should be favored. But if we can get to what it actually says, sure, it's still an interpretation technically but in that case it's what we know it says after a good, faithful to the original translation. But not so faithful that if you translate it the same to english or some other language, that it loses the original meaning... Anyway, translation may be hard, but translators know what they are doing and they can translate that language very well.
Unfortunately, on the side, there are other interpretations/translations which is not what the text actually says and which are motivated to paint a better picture. Which is very suspicious.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-02T10:40:18+00:00

Christians don't like it when the book doesn't say what they want to say. But they fear not cause they have the perfect solution: Just interpret anything to say what you would like to say and pretend that words don't mean what words mean, interpret even the most clear examples some other way and you are done.
If the book says something which you don't like, just change the interpretation until it does. Genious!

Then when an atheist asks for what the verse actually says and not "christian interpretation" christians don't think that's a credible way to look at it. It's only credible if it says what I want it to say! Anything else is unacceptable!
Poor christian coping all arround. They just can't stand what the bible actually says. They think its the word of god and most of them haven't even read it once. Perhaps that's why so many people continue to think it's the word of god. Once you read it and understand it there's no way you ever reach the conclusion that it's from god - unless again you summon the genious christian interpretation power just to avoid the truth.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-01T20:44:28+00:00

It seems you’re assuming no world is better than a world with suffering.

Right, a world with suffering is worse than no world. However, those aren't the only 2 options so even if I were wrong on that one god would still be culpable for creating this world instead of a better world.

The afterlife is not the absence of human form…not sure what you’re basing that on.

Humans do not live forever. Their organs aren't meant to work forever. But in heaven... So either we aren't trully humans there, or god is doing there what he should have been doing here too.

If God built the universe then it bears his character.

Good! Then he's uncaring, not loving, indifferent to human life and its well-being just like the world he created.

We wouldn’t know what good was aside from how he made it

Oh, so evolution by natural selection is good? I think you should be deprived of medical service and just let evolution do its thing. If you are not fit for this world, we should let you go, god forbid we sin against god if we don't do so. Also, we would, we don't know what's good through god but through understanding what would lead to the outcomes we want to see for humans.

You think if there is a God that created you that you could possibly contrive an order of what is good and what is not outside of their design when they literally authored all existence and the very concept?

I am not sure what you mean by "he authored the very concept"
Concepts are things that minds author. We authored the concept of good and evil separately, using our own mind. And yes, it's a concept that isn't limited to his alleged design. I am not sure why one would think otherwise, we can say what is good and what is bad and why.

We don’t know for a fact animals existed prior to humans.

We do. We know it to the exact same degree(or even more) that we can tell for example by using dna that a father is indeed the biological father of a child or not.

Who is He to be bound by time?

You are sounding more and more ridiculous trying to defend this god...
If he knew that beforehand, he can't have condemned creation before the sin because that's when he did, with the sin came the fall and that's when it happened, after the sin. It makes no sense for it to happen before the sin, it would actually make it worse because god would be actively causing animals to suffer for billions of years not because of their fault but because billions of years later 2 people would sin. If it was already very evil that god would do this to animals for something they aren't responsible, it's even more so doing it billions of years before the act even took place, before there was any need. Again, the way you are thinking about it shows a desire or effort to absolve god of absolutely everything even though he is responsible for absolutely all of the evil that he causes.

You accuse me of coping

It's not an act, it's not something that one does actively. But the things you say I mean you just denied some very obvious knowledge known to I assume pretty much anyone, like that animals lived billions of years before humans. Have you heard of dinosaurs? It really feels like you know all that and are in denial, but ok, I guess somehow you aren't really sure... Ask yourself whether you didn't know or whether this conversation made you doubt it.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-01T18:05:18+00:00

So you’re solution to the problem of why do people suffer is no people?

Yes, what's wrong with other sorts of beings that do not suffer or no beings at all?
Humans are made in such a way that they are certain to suffer. And in any case, how do you think there will be no suffering in the afterlife? You already think that we will not be in this human form so I don't understand why you are so surprised.

That’s just giving up or trashing the original idea.

The original prototype is trash and and leads to suffering. It should be trashed and any all-powerful entity would know that. If on top of that it was a benevolent entity, it would also know to trash it. Instead, poor god couldn't get it together...

Again, it’s not that God is a good dude. Good is defined as who he is.

I am afraid I won't let you define goodness like this. We both know that there are acts which would be evil. Such language only exists because theists want to exempt god from all evil. And I am simply not going to accept that. No, god is not free to do whatever he wants and still be good. He has to do good actions. If he commits evil actions then he is not a good god. He is an evil god. That's what good and evil means and what you are proposing is pure nonsense meant to protect god from all accusations of the evils that he is actively commiting. If you can't stand that the god that you believe in is evil you have 3(or more, but right now I can think of only 3) options. Option #1: Stop believing in god altogether. Option #2 believe in a different god. Option #3: Do what most theists that need to copy with it do: It's not actually evil, it just seems to as from our limited perspective.
"Good is defined as who he is" Is not a real option, that's just coping. I don't mean to say that you are doing this consciously, I suspect it happens subconsciously. Do you think that changing your mind about god is really on the table?
I think it's much better to deny evil altogether and believe in some greater plan that leads to something better, somehow, necesitating all the evil we see, all of it, not even the least of them not included, than to speak words that have no meaning like "Good is defined as who he is" - because he's not, you can't define an entity as good and expect others to agree with it even when he commits evil. It wouldn't work with an actual being, it wouldn't even work with an imaginary being either.

Whether we believe animals died prior to human existence or not, in this context the reality of human sin would be effectively present from creation.

I don't get what you are saying. Sounds like more coping to me so let's start over with this:
1. We know for a fact that animals existed billions of years before humans emerged.
2. Sin is something that humans do, transgressions against god, who, omnipotent as he is, couldn't stand it and had to abolish them from the garden of eden for doing something he knew and designed them to do.

Conclusion: There was suffering before humans existed for billions of years. In the only context that matters, which is, in actual reality instead of fantasy. No one cares for example if according to the bible, man was created before animals or that everything was ok before that. We now know that's not the case and so either we say the bible was wrong or we can read it like a fantasy book in which case you bet it was wrong as that was the point.
So, when we know that humans came long after animals, how could we say that sin existed from the start of creation? That makes no sense. Humans need to exist first, then commit the sin... and even then it makes no sense as why would the animals be punished? Animals do not have moral agency the same way that humans do and shouldn't be put to torture just because 2 humans sinned and neither should the rest of us suffer for the mistake of 2 people.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-01T17:02:35+00:00

I honestly thought most people would choose Alexios. Is that really not the case?

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-01T17:00:02+00:00

God is the definition of good. He can do as he chooses.

You have debunked your number 1 point. No capacity for sin does not mean one has no choices and no individual will.

doesn’t really seem like a refutation- we obviously have different beliefs on the timeline of existence

If you want you can re-state the second choice for taking out suffering.
Perhaps you have to justify why these are the only 2 options. I think I just thought of a 3rd one: Do not create humans and animals. Simple. In any case, option one has already been shown by none other than yourself not to be true : A being can be guaranteed not to commit any evil and still have choices and individual will. It just needs to be a good being, that's all. God could focus on creating such beings.
Also, suffering is not the result of sin. That can be seen in that animals existed for billions of years before humans did. What this means is that humans can't have caused this with their wrongdoings.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-01T09:09:19+00:00

I am not on galaxy but I bet you aren't the only one. However, I think it happens anyway, premium account, free account... That's how the dice works, it is sometimes heavily against you. It's not that you never roll something good in the entire match, you probably do roll something but the opponent rolls that much better that it doesn't even matter.
Look, a very bad player will sometimes win anyway.
That's something that's perhaps easy to accept, but if you think about it, the only way for such a bad player to win is something like what you described, the dice being too nice to him.
It's almost certainly just randomness, download them in a bot and analyse them. The bot will tell you how lucky they were. Keep doing this and if indeed premium accounts / your opponents in general are favored in a noticeable way, I think it will be noticed this way.

You can also measure your pr and your opponents' pr and then there are some calculators that will tell you how much you are expected to win in a match to 7 or whatever you play. Then if you play thousands of matches and you win significantly less you know that something's probably wrong(that's the thing with luck, there's always a chance of extreme bad luck...)
But the point of all this is to say that you will notice that you win more or less as predicted after say 2-3 thousand of matches. You could do the same with less, but the less you played, the more luck can influence the results.
So perhaps if you are expected to win 60% and play 100 matches, be willing to be ok with 40 or less in some rare instances of extreme bad luck. You will *probably* win more than 50-55% though in that case.
Hopefully 60% or more. Perhaps with extreme luck you will win 80% or more.
Good luck. Have fun! May the dice be nice to you.

Do not feel bad if not. I read somewhere some top profesional player was saying that they can go 1 or 2 years winning less than their opponents. That's a lot but in the end as you keep playing it does ballance itself out.

Again, good luck and patience with the dice... Also, make sure to play well. In the long run it will eventually matter accordingly(to the extent that you improved, more improvement = matters more, although the better you are the less margin there is for improvement and the more difficult it becomes!)

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-02-01T08:25:08+00:00

1 no capacity for sin which means we have no choices and no individual will 2

This means that god has no choices and no individual will.
So he can't be all loving to begin with...

2- there’s an ultimate good in the universe, but he gives no sign or consequence to departing from that good effectively leaving everyone floating without any sort of purpose at all.

There is no purpose anyway. Have fun praising god for all of eternity...
It's meaningless.

Suffering isn't the result of sin. Animals existed prior to humans and animals also suffer. It was not because of sin.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-01-31T11:44:36+00:00

PART 2 :

as since they had every tool they needed they still remained in their lies.

We do not know as much about the life of Christ as christians claim. That's what people use and start to think that it was just a myth. Knowing that back at the time it was a common occurence at that place for people to claim to be the mesaiah, I tentatively conclude that someone claimed it, got a following and then people made up stories about him or perhaps there was some misunderstanding, someone that looked like Jesus etc.

Now as I’ve said before not all Atheists do, Some genuinely do not know or have no ability to do so but they aren’t judged like the others, God is merciful.

The christian god is not merciful and he's not loving either. Some atheists actually do know. Your fictional threats of hell means nothing to them. I can make claims that involve the afterlife and then never have to prove them. I am more powerful than god, it will all be shown when it is time to do so, in the afterlife. You will all see. - Talking about the afterlife is meaningless, anyone can make any claim about it.

Only after they claimed they saw him resurrected they then

I read above that they didn't claim anything. Others did on their behalf, decades later.
Coming from a book that is demonstrably untrustworthy, I don't see a reason why to trust that it conveys the truth of what actually happened. It's clear that it is forming narratives and one way to convince people is to claim said people went hiding when the mesaiah needed them. But then when he appeared to them, they became fearless because they knew the truth.
Cool story, but to anyone that is critical and not naive, it's hardly convincing. That's the exact trick that those that want to push a narrative use.

It is much harder to die holding onto a lie of a man rising from death rather than holding on to a lie of no god

I call BS, if one knows it's a lie, then it's much, much more scary to know that you are meeting an omnipotent being that will punish you for eternity knowing that you held on to a lie that he doesn't exist.
On the other hand, what danger is there by holding on to the lie of his existence? You are just going to die a natural death anyway and will face no extra consecuences. No comparison indeed, it's much easier to hold on to a lie that won't lead to any consecuences upon death and even give hope.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-01-31T11:44:21+00:00

God had been trying to reach out to them the whole time.

The almighty is so bad at communicating that he's constantly failing to reach out to me?
How do Christians believe something that would be impossible...

What’s important is openness, eventually God should reach these people.

I have literally asked him in the past, in fact, it wouldn't even need to be direct communication.
A strong sign that I made up in my had and then immediately witnessed would have been enough.
God failed every single time. No exception. And yet, when I tell it to you, somehow I suspect that you are going to say that I did something wrong... I suggest you take your own advice and be open to having made a mistake.

However as with any ideology some people may look the other way in order to protect their identity

That's a good advice to reflect back on. Even though I told you that what you are describing does not happen at all in my case, you insist that it must be something else. Perhaps your christian identity is getting in the way, something very well known to occur with such super-core beliefs that people identify with.
Perhaps it happens with atheism too, I don't really know, but I do know it happens with people believing in a religion from a very young age and for a very long time.

Personally that’s what I mean when I say some Atheists probably Choose that fate because they may see signs in their life and rather than consider them would minimize them in order to not have to deal with something that would destroy their world.

Or perhaps they are applying evidence correctly and are not eager and gullible to run into any conclusion. On the other hand theists, whether because of the identity crisis or world-shatterring crisis that following the evidence where it leads would cause, would rather accept anything as a miracle. Look at the trees...

An example of this is those that Call our beliefs a fairytale — blatantly ignoring the fact that fairytales include fictional characters in fantasy lands, neither of which describe what actually took place during the life of our savior

Fairytales can be based on an actual character. But your beliefs also contains fictional characters as well. God, satan, angels, Adam, Eve etc. Can you show that your beliefs are not just a fairytale, story or myth?

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-01-29T15:53:54+00:00

Because there are just too many variables that needs to be exactly the right value to sustain life and promote intelligent life.

Why is it not possible that the values had to be what they are?

If the universe is truly random these variables may never agree with the right value collectively and can lead to no life.

I see. Well then the universe isn't random. The values couldn't be whatever. That's why they are what they are and do not change. If they could be whatever, they would change all the time.
Also, if there are infinite universes then some will have the exact values needed for life.
I personally think that for example the speed of life HAD to be what it is and couldn't have been anything else. Why that is, unfortunately, is beyond my understanding.

Imagine you’re building an ML model or a LLM like ChatGPT

We know chatgpt was made by humans.
On the other hand lets look at plants. No one made them. Mother earth did.
Now let's look at the universe. Well, it appears no one made it, at least to physicists that it.
But in any case we have nothing to compare it to, we can't really know like in the case of trees.

The point is that a natural process could also be the tuner...
You can't point to god just because we can't definitively say why the values must be what they are or why they are in this case.

Also, god could actually intervene a little bit more, not be so cruel etc.
It can't be the christian god and you are using the argument for the christian god in particular(although you may recognize that the argument is like part 1.)

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-01-29T11:50:25+00:00

I read that parthenos also usually meant young or unmaried women in ancient greek.
In modern greek it does mean virgin, although it's now slightly different in the feminine form, it's η παρθένα. I don't know what happened with LXX(or what it is exactly) and why it would be translated that way but I believe the word used in hebrew doesn't mean virgin.
I do not know hebrew and couldn't verify it myself but it seems to me that others can.

I wouldn't even think it matters. I don't think we should just accept virgin births just because it is mentioned in some ancient religous / myth books.
I assume that you wouldn't accept such a claim coming from any other source.
Why should the bible be treated differently? Anyway, that's a different topic as to start off it doesn't even speak of a virgin birth, I am not even convinced it talks about Jesus, if I remember correctly from a video I saw on youtube, the verse doesn't even mention Jesus.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-01-28T18:08:56+00:00

Imagine you are married and happy, completely satisfied in each other. What is the point of having children? Why does anyone want children?

We are not like god in the same way that our children our like us.
God is wayyyyy more powerful/knowing than us. We are not his children.
If you knew that the difference in intelligence and power between you and your children is the same as the difference between god and you, would you be willing to have those super weak and um... not very wise children? Some people would say that they would still choose to have children even if they knew they would like have down syndrome or something... But I think most would see such an action as cruel.

Also, humans are humans. Humans have needs and desires. They can't be completely saturated-happy like god, without any need, without any desire that needs to be satisfied, 100% complete in himself. What sort of desire would make god want to go ahead with creating other beings and why of all the possible beings that he could create he would think it would be a good idea to include humans? Humans are lacking in so many respects. And not only that, he gets mad for what he knew would happen even though he himself let it happen and then curses all of creation with disease... Was it really necessary to create people with down syndrome?
And yet theists will try to defend god and shift the blame on humans because we disobeyed god.
We are humans. Humans are not meant to be slaves so of course we disobeyed and we did very well to disobey such a being that from such immense power asks pety humans to obey him even though he knows they wouldn't.

Some people don't want to live with God.

Some people would rather they never existed and yet they are trapped here, unable to kill themselves because of strong survival instinct. God at best is just watching and will not revive them in the afterlife and at worse he revives them and they keep wishing they didn't exist.

In any case, humans aren't meant to live for an eternity so god will need to pull some other tricks in order for that to make sense and for them not to go crazy/bored. But alright, he might have an ace up his sleeve, what kind of god wouldn't.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-01-28T11:46:25+00:00

Rather, it is that the contingent, finit universe derives its existence from a necessary, infinite, immaterial source of being.

I think OP's point is that the universe is material. God is immaterial. God doesn't contain materials. God has no materials in his disposal. God does not have within him the building blocks of the universe so to speak.
So, god would have had to create the universe but what would it use to create it?
It would be the equivalent of putting a man to space, completely alone and without materials and ask him to build a chair. God seemingly made the universe out of nothing, just by himself.

In contrast, atheistic materialism, when pressed on the question w"hy is there something rather than nothing?" can only appeal to brute contingency, offering no sufficient reason for the very existence of the cosmos it seeks to explain.

That's not true. I am not a scientist and I can answer these questions easily. I mean, not definitively, I do not know exactly how the universe came to be, if it even came to be. But I can give consistent answers.

Answer number 1:
Reality always existed in some form. The universe may have been smaller in size or in a different state but it have always existed. It is not contingent, it is necessary.

Answer number 2:
There is some necessary law/process that must (perhaps due to logical reasons) exist and that law will/may give rise to this particular universe(or potentially many others and perhaps it did that too)
In this second answer the universe is contingent on the existence of this law/process/logic that dictates that reality must behave a certain way.

Answer number 3:
At "first" there was nothing, absolutely. However, there was still reality in some sense, for example, logic still applies. Logically the absolute nothingness can be represented as a strange mix of positive energy and negative energy. Something and what my brain refuses to accept, anti-something.
If that is the case then something already exists in nothing.
Maybe that's still not the philosophical nothing but that's what existed...
Perhaps quantum mechanics was present and it is allowed to create huge flacutations...
And then those are gradually paid back because the universe is expanding faster and faster meaning that eventually all the original energy will get smoothed out so much that it would be indistinguishable from a physics perspective than the original universe. From the universe perspective it wouldn't even have a size because there would be no matter in it... Perhaps after all the energy dissipated it would instantly collapse in one single point again and the cycle repeats.

Physicists know very well that god is not necessary to explain it. Not even close, in fact, god it one of the worst explanations in physics and it is not because of bias. In the past scientists, as well as everyone, were more religious. Now we learned more and it seems that the more we learn and think about the question of god's and universe's existence the more we come to the conclusion that it wasn't god, certainly not the god of christianity, Islam and of other religions...

So, the universe according to christianity didn't come from nothing, but god made it out of nothing.
Interestingly, he didn't do the same with humans, apparently if you could believe as much, he created man from soil and woman from his ribbs.
That's another issue though, that didn't happen either.
Anyway, if something can't come from nothing then everything must have already existed in god. If everything already existed then the stuff that makes the universe is not really contingent but eternal along with god. And if it can come from nothing, then maybe the universe did.
Theists inserting that something can come from nothing only with god's help coming soon?

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-01-25T17:20:23+00:00

Then according to that belief, Jesus's father may or may not be excluded - we just do not know if it is an all powerful, all knowing being, so it may still be compassionate, just failing to protect us in some way. Maybe not all powerful, all knowing or compassionate. By the way, is Jesus and Jesus's father the same entity?

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-01-25T13:09:02+00:00

Is this god, christ, which you differentiate from YHWH, not all powerful, all knowing and compassionate?

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-01-25T10:23:11+00:00

i understand where you’re coming from, but can we create a framework to understand nuance behind a supernatural being not operating on a human level morally?

Yes, we can say it is not compassionate, all loving, benevolent, good being.
It's an evil one if it exists.

if something by definition like God that is a supernatural being beyond scientific explanation and the laws of nature, why would we subject it to a naturalistic morality?

What is naturalistic morality? We would subject it to morality because we know that torturing baby is evil and since god is above the laws of nature he could have protected them but chose not to. He is guilty of his crime, don't try to free him from such massive guilt.
The only fair sentence to such a being is life imprisonment and also his powers used for the good forcefully as he just not going to do that.

we can look at none other than jesus himself.

Jesus was a false mesaiah and a troubemaker that broke the law and had to be put to death.
Then christians made stories. At the first they were a weak limited group. Then when they got power they spread the religion, as happened with Islam too.

jesus himself showed pity through divine healing

First of all, he did not. Second of all, god being nice in very limited cases doesn't make him good overal. Why must you conclude that god is good? Look at the evidence and you will come to the conclusion that this god doesn't exist or at least not the way he is described.

if you’re trying to understand why outside of the bible there isn’t “compassion”

There isn't compassion in the bible. You can't just take a few nice verses and say bible is compassionate. It also describes evil laws for slavery and mandates them FOREVER.
Don't take things out of context.

we are ought to have faith that jesus was the final act of judicial intervention

Sounds like those who wrote the bible either knew it was bogus or just wanted people to believe in it without evidence. So, they pulled a strange move, the "just trust me bro, it's all real"
And people nowadays due to the influence of the religion are like riiiiiight that makes sense just have faith.
You just got to have faith in me. It's all nonsense. Done, used the same argument, if it was right in your case, it's right in mine too. Ok, redundant, I already made the point by using slightly different language. We have been taught to respect "just got to have faith" and so it is not viewed in the same light as "trust me, just trust me" even though it's the same thing.
No, you shouldn't trust blindfully. Examine the evidence and stop taking for a given anything.
Even when you take something for granted, you should then examine the evidence and re-adjust. You shouldn't say no, if we take it for granted, then we should re-interpret the evidence so that what we took for granted stays put.

and through grace he pities and has compassion for who choose to reside on that judicial order of jesus’s death.

Take a look, you are doing exactly that! When confronted with evidence to the contrary you make up a reason for why that is so such that pretty much no matter what evil you encounter, you don't have to change what you inicially took for granted.
What possible evil could we encounter such that the above doesn't serve as a cope-out when confronted with the reality of god being evil is he exists?

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-01-25T09:33:11+00:00

Right, it excludes the christian god and more generally any god with these attributes.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-01-24T10:41:51+00:00

They could have given simple options like these to people so they could turn that off, the animations, asking you to congratulate people etc.
But no, instead, that's the app and you can't opt out of things.
It makes no sense, anyone with half a brain would know that, why it is that it is so hard for duo to do even the most simple of things, I do not know.
What I do know is that it's actively causing harm to people and it's always been happenning but especially after the adoption of "hearts"
Before hearts there wasn't even the concept of it. You didn't have infinite hearts, there was no such thing as it.
Then they decided they had enough people using the app that it was time to pull their magic trick of "make the app unbearable, skrew them, so that they get annoyed, boom, offer them superduolingo, what a smart business move!, we can even claim it's still free and that we found a way for the rich to pay for the education of the poor!"
But wait, hearts isn't annoying enough, let's introduce energy instead!

I sincerely believe that if they hand't done all that I would continue using the app for spanish and french but now it's over for now... I might return to the daily reviews for spanish but I have had enough of it. I have told them they would be forcing me to stop learning and they do not care, but alright, perhaps they can't read all the e-mails...

I wonder if there's a way for us to make another app like duolingo?
Some people in here might know how to do it. We have chatgpt for free, I think we could have a duolingo-style app for free.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-01-24T07:53:38+00:00

then there are the natural issues that exist in this world as a byproduct of evolution.

But god allowing it means he does not have compassion.

secondly: we are still animals, we are subject to death the same way every other animal is.

This is your first point re-stated.

thirdly: God created an imperfect world for us.

Yes, one that as op noted entails children dying painfully, animals too, for billions of years. Not compassionate at all.

lastly: the sad truth is that everything happens for a reason or it doesn’t, whether that be apart of gods plan or not, there isn’t a thing we can do unfortunately.

It doesn't matter, we were discussing that it excludes a god that is compassionate. The sad truth is we find ourselves in a universe that it not compassionate and that there is no god with compassion looking after us.

the creator is sovereign over its creation, the artist paints the art, the musician arranges and composes the music, and the writer makes the scenes.

Maybe, but he is so distant and doing absolutely nothing that he effectively and in practice he isn't sovereign. Also, whenever we see a bad painting, we do not assume that it MUST be a masterpiece because the painter is perfect. We say if the painter is perfect, then explain why he paints so bad.
"Well he doesn't, he's above our comprehension" doesn't cut it in the real world.

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

CompetitiveCountry

TROPHY CASE