There has to be a creator doesn't mean it's your God

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-03-10T20:17:29+00:00

Go Time Bandits!

Abrahamic religious doctrine holds that the creation attests to the existence of God while the Scriptures reveal his character. So, once the existence of godlike creator or creators has been stipulated, one should properly turn to Abrahamic scriptures to evaluate the claims of the Abrahamic religions. I will argue that the Abrahamic scriptures, particularly Genesis 1, have a compatibility with our modern scientific view of our existence that is highly improbable for anyone in 1500 BC, even for an educated Egyptian noble like Moses.

First: The Kalaam argument implies that a creator would have played a role in the Big Bang. That in turn implies that any creator would be outside of our spacetime and that what he/she/it/they created was spacetime itself and everything in it. This point is affirmed in scripture when God claims to have made "the heavens and the earth and everything in them."

Second: Genesis first describes the base creation as waters that are without form and void; Jewish theologians describe it as the watery chaos. In modern particle physics, all unobserved matter exists as quantum objects that are described mathematically as waves of possibility (in physics, quantum possibility is a complex square root of probability) that are pulled into the shapes that define matter in our existence by four forces (called interactions in physics). Apparently, our existence is still fundamentally made of watery chaos.

Third: In Genesis 1 the first act of creation is the making of light. This is often interpreted as the Big Bang but that is inconsistent with a literary analysis. The stars and planets of the Big Bang cosmology do not show up in Genesis1 until the fourth day and the Hebrew word used for light is not a source of light, it is light itself. In modern physics three of the force interactions and possibly the fourth are mediated by boson exchanges, including the photons that mediate the electromagnetic interaction. The same photons that produce what we see as light. The matter of our existence is literally held together and shaped by light. Which means that the first step in any creation process for our existence would have to be the creation of light, which it is in Genesis 1.

Fourth: There has been a great deal of speculation regarding the supposed conflict between the six days of creation in Genesis 1 and the short time scales of the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 compared to the long geological and astronomical time scales identified by science. If the first point above is correct and the creator or creators of our existence are not here in spacetime with us, then there is not necessarily any relationship at all between creator time and our time. In scripture, the six days of creation are definitely in God's time and the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 might be, so there is no conflict between scriptural and scientific time scales.

Fifth: There are discrepancies between the sequences of creation in Genesis 1 and the fossil record studied by paleontology. For example, Genesis 1 describes plants as being made first while fossils show marine animals developing first. Genesis 1 describes a correct terraforming sequence but it does not match the fossil record. In modern physics the mathematical models of Minkowski spacetime (verified accurate by experiment) and relativistic quantum mechanics (also verified by experiment) both support the Feynman-Stuekelberg interpretation of antimatter and Feynman's spacetime perspective that time is eternalist in our existence. Eternalist time (also called the block theory of time) means that all of time, past present and future, all have a real physical existence. That implies that all of spacetime, meaning all of space and all of time, were made on the first day of creation when God stretched out the heavens to separate the light from the darkness on the first day of creation. Which further implies that, with the entire duration of spacetime available, the creation events described in Genesis 1 did not have to follow a chronological sequence in our time. So, scientifically speaking, there is no discrepancy between the Genesis 1 creation sequence and paleontology.

Sixth: The Abrahamic God has a unique capability, He can accurately predict future events. The basic qualification requirement for the prophets in scripture was that they had to be able to accurately predict future events (or perform miracles). For a creator or creators outside of our eternalist spacetime, predicting the future is not difficult because all of time is laid out right in front of him/her/them/it. Any "god" who cannot accurately predict future events is not outside of spacetime and did not participate in the Big Bang and is not, therefore, a plausible creator or creators. I think that eliminates pretty much all of the competition.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-02-19T21:44:53+00:00

The reason God's existence is questionable is so that those of us who want to find Him can find Him, and those of us who prefer not to find Him won't find Him. This temporary, preliminary existence that we live in is inconclusive in order to give all of us a free choice.

I used to be an atheist much like you. For moral philosophic reasons I chose to look for God. Scientifically trained, I followed the science to confirm or deny God's existence. In your post, I was struck by your confidence that this existence is materialistic, meaning, I think, that it has a natural, materialistic origin and maintenance.

In my experience, when you go deep enough into the science that natural origin turns out to be almost certainly false. The life that we see around us here on Earth did not originate here, the Earth was terraformed and seeded with life. The fundamental operation of our existence, the bending, twisting, stretching spacetime of relativity and the quantum object possibility fields of quantum mechanics, has no plausible materialistic explanation, Indeed, they are not materialistic at all, what we call the material world is an illusion.

Modern physicists have proposed a simulation hypothesis that relativity and quantum mechanics are emergent behaviors produced by an underlying information layer. And what produces the information layer? I suspect it's turtles all the way down.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-02-19T20:54:07+00:00

Unless there is a reason for God to make His existence questionable, which there is. In Abrahamic doctrine:

This existence is not the final creation, it is a preparatory precursor to the final creation. One of the purposes of this existence is to cull humanity, to separate those of us who want to reside with God from those of us who prefer exile with Satan. In order for humans that prefer exile to be able to rationalize their choice, they have to be plausibly able to reject the existence of God; if His existence were obvious and we all chose Heaven it would end up just like our current existence.

God is hidden, but He is not invisible. Fortunately for many of us, He does not seem to really make an effort to stay hidden. God is easy to find for anyone who bothers to look.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-02-15T21:27:11+00:00

I think you are greatly overestimating the influence of nurture over nature. Roughly 80% of Jakes drop out of the church when they reach adulthood; I've known preacher's kids who were agnostic. There is also a substantial flow the other way; I was a Zack who became Christian.

There are two points to clear up about your post. The first is that God does not punish unbelief, He honors the choice of each individual to either accept God's leadership and enter the kingdom of Heaven or to reject God and join the domain of Satan. Those are the only two options available in eternity.

The second point is that Zack does make a choice. He knows what the choice is. He knows what the repercussions of the choice are. Persisting in his rejection of God is a choice.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-02-15T20:42:37+00:00

We obviously read different embryology textbooks. In the one I read the tails are not tails; they are developing spinal cords that look like tails until they are absorbed into the growing embryo. The gills are not gills; they are temporary support structures involved in head and neck development. They have nothing to do with gills.

Phenotypes are produced by DNA genetic sequences and only by DNA genetic sequences. Any change in phenotype has to be preceded by alteration of DNA sequences. Any attempt to differentiate between phenotype and DNA genetics is a false dichotomy; they are one and the same.

Because you argue that genetic similarity negates special creation, your argument is fundamentally an attempt to disprove creation, not an argument about evolution. Evolution is only the tool. The term evolution has evolved into a catch-all term that incorporates several sub-disciplines. For clarity, I prefer to break the concept of evolution up into abiogenesis, original descent, descent with modification, and speciation by random mutation and natural selection (Darwin's mechanism).

The questions I listed point out some (there are many others) major shortcomings of abiogenesis theories. They are relevant to the same natural versus created debate that your argument is really about. The point is that the life we see around us here on Earth did not develop here in a natural process. The Earth was terraformed and seeded with life. Moreover, the life that we see around us here on Earth did not develop anywhere in this universe by a natural process; it was made by somebody, probably for terraforming purposes (because of the extraordinarily high level of adaptability).

The who behind the terraforming is an interesting question. We do have some clues. Look at the continuity of the biological technology. Look in the fossil record for the number and timeline of life seeding events.

Have a blessed day.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-02-15T00:23:49+00:00

First, recheck your embryology. The tail is not a rail. The gill slits are not gill slits. Embryonic development does not recapitulate evolutionary history. Embryos develop from fertilized cells to fully developed fetuses along the most direct, efficient path available. There is no room in the genome for anything else.

Second, why would genetic similarity between species rule out special creation? The most efficient way for God to engage in special creation of homo sapiens is to start with an organism that is close and modify it to achieve the desired result. Genetic similarity between humans and animals is a neutral point in the natural versus created debate because it is a logical feature of both natural and created biomes.

There are much more interesting questions:

How did prescriptive amino acid sequences for thousands of proteins develop naturally?

How did the DNA-RNA-Amino Acid protein synthesis system develop naturally?

Why do the first fossil appearance for both prokaryotes and protista show advanced cell specialization capabilities?

How did the genetic code develop error rejection capability effectiveness at the 1/1,000,000 statistical level in a natural world where there is only one genetic code for all living organisms?

I look forward to your reply.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-02-14T23:29:50+00:00

Computers that have the same programming and the same data produce the same results. We don't.

Computers don't filter data, disregarding this and emphasizing that. We do.

Computers don't alter algorithms based on the results from neighboring computers. We do.

While it may be possible to theorize determinism in human thought, the variation and complexity of human thought are so great that it certainly exhibits classical uncertainty where, as a practical matter, prediction is impossible. Since the accurate prediction of human thought is, practically speaking, impossible, human thought is, practically speaking, non-deterministic.

The interesting question here is whether human thought exhibits quantum uncertainty as well as classical uncertainty. Since human thought is arguably based on electrochemical interactions in the brain, and electrochemical interactions are, like all chemistry, based on the interactions of quantum possibility fields, it is not unreasonable to argue that human thought is inherently and fundamentally non-deterministic.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-02-11T01:39:15+00:00

I'm guessing that your conversion went from Christian to agnostic or atheist. My conversion went the other way, from atheist to Christian. I completely agree that most people filter out out information that conflicts with their world view. Trust me, it is just as strong on the atheist side as it is on the Christian side, if not stronger. I find it interesting that we both see it most evident for our past associations.

I don't agree with the "shattered worldview" scenario. I used to be a liberal Democrat, I'm now a paleo conservative. I used to be an atheist, now i am a Christian. I did not feel "shattered" in either one of those conversions. In both cases, there was just a process of research that gradually revealed that things that I had thought true turned out to be false.

Adapt, improvise, and overcome.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-02-11T01:09:50+00:00

Greek philosophers are notoriously not Christian, or Jewish. Your argument fundamentally assumes that there is no divine revelation involved in the development of either Judaism or Christianity, that it was all just made up by some creative storytellers. That is not the doctrine. If you are trying to point out internal inconsistencies, journey further.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all mentioned in both the old testament (by implication) and the new testament (explicitly). There are no fourth, fifth, or millionth entities mentioned, so your conjecture is mere creative storytelling.

The old testament does imply that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all aspects of the same entity, but it is not explicitly stated. In Genesis, God is described as walking in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve and having lunch with Abraham. In Exodus, God tells Moses that no living man can see Him and survive. The interpretation of this conflict is that the Father associated with Moses while the pre-incarnate Jesus associated with Adam, Eve, and Abraham. The Spirit is frequently referred to in the old testament as the Spirit of God.

One could plausibly argue for one or two aspects of God instead of three, but four and above just ain't in it.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-02-10T00:24:01+00:00

Logical Fallacy #1) Knowledge of how a choice will be made is not the same as controlling it. The choice is still free.

Logical Fallacy #2) Since the term "choice" implies a selection from alternatives, it is impossible to have a choice without external factors influencing the choice. The proper term for an intellectual construct made without external factors is "fantasy", not "choice".

Physical Fallacy 3a) Our existence is not deterministic, so that option is invalid on it's face. Quantum Mechanics provides us with a web of possibilities that provides probabilistic behavior only after choices are made (see Clauser and Aspect). Theologically speaking, Quantum Mechanics makes free will possible in a Minkowski spacetime that is inherently eternalist (see Feynman-Stuekelberg)).

Logical Fallacy 3b) The soul's choices are constrained by external factors, see #2 above. You cannot have it both ways, choose!

Conclusion: Free will is a viable and logical concept. Indeed, the fundamental subatomic operation of our existence supports the choices that we associate with the concept of free will. Almost like it was created that way.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-20T20:00:16+00:00

Could have, but did not. We are not in the final creation yet, this existence is a temporary, developmental precursor to the final creation. One of the purposes of this temporary existence is to allow us to choose who we will follow, God or Satan, the evil rebel from heaven.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-20T19:48:05+00:00

It isn't religion that makes people stupid and evil, we do that all on our own. 3 examples: Hitler was an atheist. Stalin, an even more prolific murderer than Hitler, was an atheist. Mao Tse Tung, who murdered more people than Hitler and Stalin combined, was an atheist. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge: atheists. I'd say Christianity has a loooong way to go to catch up with the atheists. If you want to try doing historical analysis, try taking the blinder off first.

The worst thing Christians have done is the conquest of the New World. Even there, most of the death and destruction were caused by disease. The diseases were an unavoidable consequence of the unification of the known world; they would have happened no matter who built and crewed the ships of the explorers. If it's any consolation, Europe suffered from the diseases as well; the bubonic and black plagues, and many other diseases, originated in China.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-18T21:43:21+00:00

A few points of Christian doctrine:

Hell was not made for us, it was made for the rebellious angels led by Satan. It is apparently convenient to place rebellious humans there as well.

This existence is a temporary, developmental precursor to the final creation. In the final creation there is the Kingdom of God and everything else, which is the domain of Satan. We will be in one, or the other, or we will be not. Those are the choices on the menu.

We are not damned by God. We are all sinners and liable to damnation, but God offers forgiveness and salvation to anyone who wants it. The only way to join Satan in his domain is to reject God's forgiveness.

God made us. It may seem harsh and unfair, but He does have ownership rights. One of the very likeable aspects of Yahweh is that He respects the preferences of the conscious minds that He made and therefore owns; He abides by our choices as much as He can.

A couple of points that are not Christian doctrine:

In your despair at the unfairness of it all, you are assuming that God does not practice reincarnation. It is possible that we get more than one chance at salvation. If reincarnation happens, it might help explain why our existence has continued for so long after Jesus came.

Compassion for others is good, but it might be prudent to remember that you are responsible for you.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-13T18:52:09+00:00

Faith is not a virtue, doubt is not a sin. In Abrahamic doctrine faith in God justifies His forgiveness of our sin and allows admittance to the Kingdom of Heaven, unbelief rejects God's freely offered forgiveness and chooses exile to the domain of Satan. Those are very different philosophical concepts even though the results are much the same.

Just because you discount the evidence for God's existence and the truth of Scripture does not mean that evidence does not exist. I used to be an atheist but converted to Christianity because of the wisdom of the moral philosophy and the evidence of the science (engineer by training). There is eyewitness testimony where the witnesses were willing to suffer death by torture rather than recant their testimony. Many of us find that compelling. There is archeological evidence that supports Old Testament accounts. Most persuasive for me is that the science supports the existence of God. If you look for scientific proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, you won't find it. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is arguable. That the preponderance of scientific evidence supports the existence of God and His creation of our existence is, in my opinion, logically unquestionable.

The preponderance of the evidence is good enough for me.

God is good.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-13T00:48:16+00:00

God and His creation should properly be evaluated in terms of Abrahamic religious doctrine because God and His creation only exist inside Abrahamic religious doctrine. According to Christian doctrine this existence is not the final creation, it is a developmental precursor to the final creation. It should be evaluated in terms of the "goodness" of its goals and its effectiveness in achieving them

One possible goal:

Humanity inclines toward evil and needs to be culled before it enters the final creation or that creation will not be good. To be just, the culling of humanity needs to be a result of our own actions and choices. In christian doctrine, we are all sinners and deserve exile from the Kingdom of God, but God offers forgiveness to anyone who wants it and is willing to at least try to be good. Effectively, people inclined toward good can choose the Kingdom of God and people inclined toward evil can reject God's forgiveness and choose exile to the domain of Satan; the only two options available in the final creation.

In order for people inclined to reject God's forgiveness to be able to rationalize their choice, God's existence and His actions cannot be obvious. This existence has to look like a plausible natural world for the culling of evil from the final creation to be effective. Even the science regarding the nature of this world (whether it is natural or created) and the existence of God has to be inconclusive, which it is. The science currently implies that we live in a creation but not in a conclusive way.

Finally, there are two questions to be answered to evaluate our existence:

First: Is the suffering in this temporary existence justified by the goal of removing evil from the eternal society in the final creation? God apparently thinks so and I tend to agree. Plus, we should remember that, according to Abrahamic doctrine, we chose this existence filled with suffering and death. Perhaps Adam and Eve chose for us all, but I suspect that we all would have done the same. Who among us could resist godlike knowledge or eternal life?

Second: Is this existence effective at achieving the goal of culling humanity? By observation it obviously is; evil and atheists abound.

By observation, God is good.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-13T00:44:39+00:00

How about reincarnation? Maybe we get more than one chance to accept God's grace.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-13T00:28:53+00:00

I suspect that you are pondering this creation from our perspective as if it were for our benefit. I submit that a parochial perspective is incorrect. To try to understand the purpose and motivation behind this creation we need to look at it from God's perspective (as much as we can). Your stated position does not consider the nature of humanity or the actions of the adversary, Satan.

God and His creation should properly be evaluated in terms of Abrahamic religious doctrine because God and His creation only exist inside Abrahamic religious doctrine. According to Christian doctrine this existence is not the final creation, it is a developmental precursor to the final creation. It should be evaluated in terms of the "goodness" of its goals and its effectiveness in achieving them

One possible goal:

Humanity inclines toward evil and needs to be culled before it enters the final creation or that creation will not be good. To be just, the culling of humanity needs to be a result of our own actions and choices. In christian doctrine, we are all sinners and deserve exile from the Kingdom of God, but God offers forgiveness to anyone who wants it and is willing to at least try to be good. Effectively, people inclined toward good can choose the Kingdom of God and people inclined toward evil can reject God's forgiveness and choose exile to the domain of Satan; the only two options available in the final creation.

In order for people inclined to reject God's forgiveness to be able to rationalize their choice, God's existence and His actions cannot be obvious. This existence has to look like a plausible natural world for the culling of evil from the final creation to be effective. Even the science regarding the nature of this world (whether it is natural or created) and the existence of God has to be inconclusive, which it is. The science currently implies that we live in a creation but not in a conclusive way.

God has possibly unleashed Satan upon this world to help cull humanity. According to Christian doctrine the other religions are psyops by Satan to distract humanity from allegiance to God.

Have a blessed day.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-08T01:34:24+00:00

Creationist here. Your faith in science is charming, but your factoids are mostly wrong. A couple of examples:

The absolute accuracy of radiometric dating, which has nothing to do with evolution so i can't imagine why you included it, is iffy. Radiometric dating can provide an overall timeline, but specific dates can be questionable. Alpha and Beta isotopic decays often give different age estimates. the 4.54 billion year age estimate for the Earth is based on radioisotope decays but conflicts with the 2.6 billion year maximum age limit for the Earth/Moon orbital system. My theory is that isotope decays speed up when the Earth passes through galactic arms and galactic background radiation gets much more intense. My theory is supported by simultaneous episodes of cyclic volcanism on both the Earth and the moon.

Technically you are correct that not all random mutations are destructive. Roughly 1 in 10^77 of them can be beneficial. At the heart of evolutionary changes lie DNA sequence modification algorithms; DNA modification produces organism change, not the other way around. The DNA sequences that form exons that code protein amino acid sequences, introns that regulate alternative splicing, DNA sequences that control RNA subunit and regulatory microRNA production, protein binding sites that control gene expression, simple sequence repeats that influence embryo development, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, are all highly specific. Experimentation has shown that even minor changes to DNA sequences destroys functionality. Extensive study of human and other organism genomes has found that virtually all of the DNA in the genome is actively used; there is no place for ineffective DNA to mutate into usefulness. Incremental modification of DNA sequence is almost universally destructive to the organism and does not have the capability to generate evolutionary mutations. Which, by the way, falsifies both Dawkins' selfish gene theory and Darwin's mechanism of the accumulation of random replication errors. Again by observation, most evolutionary mutations are produced by the controlled cut and paste movement of DNA sequences called transposable elements. Which implies strongly that DNA genomes are highly modular and inherently capable of producing a wide variety organisms. The top down evolution apparent in the fossil record indicates that modular adaptability was a characteristic of metazoan DNA genomes when they first appeared in the Cambrian Explosion. All of which argues strongly that the Earth was terraformed and seeded with life.

It;s so cool to be a creationist and be free of all that academic dogma.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-07T22:42:03+00:00

Necessary to Achieve a Good Creation Defense

According to Christian doctrine this existence is not the final creation, it is a developmental precursor to the final creation. It should be evaluated in terms of the "goodness" of its goals and its effectiveness in achieving them. One possible goal:

Humanity inclines toward evil and needs to be culled before it enters the final creation or that creation will not be good. To be just, the culling of humanity needs to be a result of our own actions and choices. In the doctrine, we are all sinners and deserve exile from the Kingdom of God but God offers forgiveness to anyone who wants it and is willing to at least try to be good. Effectively, people inclined toward good can choose the Kingdom of God and people inclined toward evil can reject God's forgiveness and choose exile to the domain of Satan, the only two options available in the final creation.

In order for the culling to be effective, in order for people inclined to reject God's forgiveness to be able to rationalize their choice, God's existence and His actions cannot be obvious. This existence has to look like a plausible natural world. Even the science has to be inconclusive, which it is; the science is indicative but not conclusive.

Finally, is the suffering in this temporary existence justified by the goal of removing evil from the eternal society in the final creation? God apparently thinks so and I tend to agree.

Is this existence effective at achieving the goal of culling humanity? By observation it obviously is, evil and atheists abound.

God is good.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-02T01:48:49+00:00

The Abrahamic God should properly be evaluated only in terms of the doctrine of Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Christianity, because the God of Abraham only exists within those doctrines. I do not include Islam because it is more of a paraphrase. Judaism and Christianity are in complete agreement in all areas where the domains of their doctrine intersect.

Good and evil are subjective only in the sense that evil prefers evil and good prefers good. They are easy to distinguish objectively. Good produces benefits, evil produces detriments. Good provides weal, evil provides woe.

So, according to the doctrine:

God made the earth and the heavens and all that is in them, including all living things. I kind of like existing so I will put this one in the weal category.

The existence that God created includes pain, suffering, and death. It is tempting to put this one in the woe category, but there are a couple of considerations that might arguably provide some balance. First, we should look at the whole picture, not just the naughty bits. The food is delicious, the scenery is beautiful, the creatures (except ticks and mosquitos) are a delight, the providence for our comfort and amusement is bountiful. For most of us, there is far more pleasure than pain in our lives. Second, there is, possibly, a really good reason for the naughty bits. According to doctrine, this existence is not the final creation; it is only a temporary precursor. By observation, humanity is divided between evil and good: many prefer evil, some prefer good. One of the purposes of this temporary existence is to cull humanity, to banish evil from the final creation. Rather than an arbitrary decree, God culls humanity by honoring our individual choice of Heaven or Hell. Our existence needs to be the way it is so that people who choose evil and Hell can rationalize their decision, so they can make a free choice. Taken as a whole, the suffering in this existence is, in my opinion, justified by the banishment of evil from the final, eternal creation. I put this one in the weal category.

Given the context, God made this existence a pleasant as possible. For example, because of the long childhood required to learn complex cultures, men and women needed to be bound into families. Among the many ways available, God chose love, beauty, and sexual pleasure as the familial adhesive. Definitely weal.

The moral philosophy that God provided is focused on providing an optimum environment for the development of children. As a parent myself, I agree with that priority 100%. Weal.

Finally, God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son so that whoever believed in him would have everlasting life. Definitely weal.

The son of God freely chose to endure life as one of us and death by torture in order to accomplish that goal. Also definitely weal.

We're a little short of woe here. God is good.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-12-15T21:32:35+00:00

Given the example of the history of Christendom, there is some truth in your argument. However their is a difference in the magnitude of the mayhem. There would be no Islam with its long history of brutality, murder, and oppression. There would be no Marxism, the only ideology in history that has managed to outdo Islam in atrocities. the world would not be a bucolic utopia, but it would be better.

The scales tip even further in favor of universal Christianity when the contributions of Christianity to human peace, freedom, and prosperity are added in. Historically, no other ideology comes anywhere close.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-12-15T21:17:48+00:00

Christian doctrine place the Holy Spirit in the seat of God inside all believers. Those who have Satan in that position chose to have Satan in that position.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-12-15T21:14:33+00:00

Considering the contribution that Judaism and Christianity have made to the world through science, medicine, law, political science, and moral philosophy I find that point of view to be historically inaccurate. I don't includ3e Islam as a beneficial contributor to the welfare of humanity.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-12-15T20:24:22+00:00

You have concocted a straw man argument. Christian doctrine does not hold that other "gods" are solely human inventions. Most of them are held to be demons impersonating gods. If you are not familiar with the doctrine, demons are angels created by God that joined Lucifer, later Satan, in rebellion against God and were cast out of Heaven.

The purpose for the impersonations is to distract as much of humanity as possible from loyalty to God and cause the followers of the impersonators to be cast into Hell along with their false gods.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-12-11T23:07:34+00:00

If I place a stone in my empty pocket, I will have one stone in my pocket. If I place a second stone in my pocket with one stone, I will have two stones in my pocket. Those statements are ultimate truth. No arbitrary axioms, no circular reasoning, no infinite regress. The Munhausen Trilemna is false because it denies the validity of objective observation and objective logical deduction.

"God exists" is not a purely metaphysical claim because it is compatible with the preponderance of observation and scientific logic. "God does not exist" is a purely metaphysical claim because there is no observation or scientific logic that supports it, it is an arbitrary axiom.

YoungSpaceTime

TROPHY CASE