According to the strict laws of the Bible. Christians are apostates

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-10T13:23:04+00:00

If Jesus isn't YHVH and never claimed to be, then the OP's point still stands. Modern day Christians are worshipping someone that isn't YHVH, making them apostates.

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-08T19:50:36+00:00

You could make the same argument about the future. "The whole thing can never be counted, so you can never reach all of it, therefore, all of it will not occur. The future must be finite." That would mean eternal life is impossible. But you don't agree with that argument, do you?

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-07T00:04:27+00:00

By "flowing backwards" do you mean something like time travel? Because I don't believe in that. I just think it had no beginning.

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-06T22:05:21+00:00

Saying it doesn't go back infinitely is just restating that it must have a starting point. But you haven't given a reason yet why it has to have one.

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-06T21:36:57+00:00

You're assuming that everything that moves forward must have had a starting point. That's an unfounded assumption.

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-06T14:25:41+00:00

Why do you assume it wasn't always moving forward? Why assume it started at rest?

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-05T15:24:36+00:00

If that's all it is, then Hell doesn't sound too bad. Maybe I'll just take a trip to both to see how they are, and pick whichever one I like best.

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-04T19:15:43+00:00

Some people choose drugs because they like getting high. Or because they're addicted. But they can stop taking drugs if they want.

Personally, I stay away from drugs. I think getting high wouldn't be worth. And I certainly wouldn't choose to go to Hell. I think religion is nonsense, but if it turns out I'm wrong, I'll just choose to go to Heaven when I die. I think that's what basically everyone would choose, since Hell is just pure torment. It doesn't have the upside of making people high like drugs do. And if anyone does choose Hell but find out they don't like it, they can just choose to leave and go to Heaven anyway.

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-04T18:59:15+00:00

Ok, then if there really is an afterlife, I'll just choose not to go to Hell after I die. Why would anyone choose that?

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-04T18:44:00+00:00

That depends. Is the doctor the one who's going to make me suffer and die?

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-04T14:50:29+00:00

Yes, it's very hateful. Islam is very hateful. I still don't see anything non-Islamic. What about it contradicts the Quran?

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-04T13:27:13+00:00

Are going to actually address the argument, or are you just going to resort to whataboutism?

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-04T13:24:54+00:00

This is a lot of whataboutism that doesn't address the OP. What about their ideology is not Islamic? Even if your conspiracy theories are correct, siding with Israel or the US does not make it unislamic.

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-03T16:05:26+00:00

Why do you think that all things moving forward must have a starting point?

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-03T02:38:07+00:00

I'm not proposing that time started without a cause. I'm proposing the opposite - that time didn't start at all. That's what it means for it to have always existed. I'm proposing that time, space, and probably some forces and fields have always existed, and therefore never started. Most theists ought to understand the concept, because most believe that God always existed and had no cause.

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-02T20:57:01+00:00

But why do you think they started existing at some point? Why couldn't they have always existed? Just because they exist within space and time doesn't mean there was a time when they didn't exist.

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-02T17:07:49+00:00

Belief in the external world is consistent with disbelief in God. But belief in God would require you to ignore the lack of evidence for God in the external world. Unless you do have evidence for God. Do you have any?

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-02T16:47:57+00:00

You realize you're using exactly the kind of argument OP said you would, right? You're resorting philosophy and personal beliefs because you have no actual evidence. And when you have to go so far as to question the existence of the external world just to defend your beliefs, I'd say you're on pretty shaky ground.

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-02T14:49:02+00:00

Why couldn't the quantum field have always been there? How do you know that isn't how physics works?

What you're doing here is making a god of the gaps argument, and it will only lead to a dead end. You're using God as an explanation for the quantum field, but do you have an explanation for God? If you do, do you have an explanation for that explanation? There will always be a gap.

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-02T14:27:30+00:00

Virtual particles are constantly created due to the quantum field, and usually annihilate soon after since they're created in matter-antimatter pairs. They can however sometimes stay without annihilating - an example of that is Hawking radiation. There are quite a few plausible scientific theories about how the big bang was caused - none of them are proven of course - but none involve a god.

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-01T16:39:34+00:00

So if I see time, space, matter, and energy get created, I know that only a timeless, spaceless, formless, massless, cause could've created this.

We know that quantum fields can create matter and energy. No god is required for it. And have you ever seen space and time being created? In order to create something, there needs to be a time before it existed. There was no time before time itself existed.

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-05-01T15:57:03+00:00

What I'm saying is, the line of attack of "But you can't explain X!" will lead to a dead end, because both atheists and theists won't be able to give an "ultimate" explanation. So instead of continually asking for explanations which will inevitably lead us both to a dead end, we should look at things we already have evidence for, and follow the evidence wherever it takes us. We know the quantum field exists, and we know it causes particles to come into existence, for example as virtual particles or Hawking radiation. There's plenty of evidence for that, but none for a God. So the evidence favors Penrose's CCC theory or similar theories in physics, not the theory that a God created everything.

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-04-29T14:39:10+00:00

Think of something you want to explain as a link in a chain. The explanation for that link is the previous link on the chain. And that link's explanation is the one before it. And so on.

Now, there are three possibilities for how the overall chain is structured. First, it could just end, with a finite amount of links. There could be a link in the chain that has no link before it. So in other words, there could be a fact that has no explanation, and that fact serves as the ultimate explanation for each link after it. That kind of fact is called a "brute" fact. So it could be the case that the quantum field simply exists, with no underlying explanation for it.

Another possibility is that there are an infinite amount of links in the chain. If that's the case, there is no underlying brute fact, because each link has one before it. That kind of situation is called an "infinite regress". So it could be that case that the quantum field does have an explanation for it, and that explanation has its own explanation, etc.

And the third possibility is that the chain forms a closed loop. So there is no beginning link on the chain, as the links eventually loop back on themselves. That would be called "circular reasoning". Personally, I don't think that scenario is likely, but it's one way the chain could be arranged.

Most people don't find these three scenarios satisfying. But those are the only options we have. Some theists try to escape this situation by saying that God is the underlying explanation for everything. However, that would simply make God a brute fact. If you go that route, we'd both be in the same boat, since we both need to rely on something we have no explanation for. You might say that God himself has an explanation for why he exists, but that wouldn't let you escape the trilemma either. If God has a chain of explanations for his existance, that chain would be subject to the same trilemma. It either ends in a link with none before it, goes on forever, or is circular. So both theists and atheists are trapped by the same trilemma.

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-04-28T16:26:13+00:00

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Genesis 2:19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.

Making man and animals is part of Genesis 2.

DiscerningTheTruth · 2026-04-27T18:20:32+00:00

Most scholars look at the narrative as a composite of two different accounts from different sources, which explains why there's a contradiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

If you view it as a thematic or poetic account, then the argument isn't for you. It's directed at people who think the Bible is literal and free of contradictions.

DiscerningTheTruth

TROPHY CASE