>See the sub description if you're not sure what Philosophy of Religion is. Inappropriate topics include discussions of theology and religious apologetics. While it may seem difficult to determine the appropriateness of some topics a good rule of thumb is if your argument contains a premise that involves exegesis of sacred text, this is probably the wrong forum.

Do the Mods and admins on here not understand what philosophy is?

this album is sparking controversy for dismantling the american administration and its misuse of religion, taking shots at trump and his christian nationalist agenda. it also serves as a narrative piece for the artist’s life, and proves itself as extremely nuanced and cohesive. take a listen if you like raw, elaborate, and purposeful lyricism

​

Traditional theodicy argues that God is the 'Unconstrained Architect' who chose this specific world (including its capacity for horrific suffering) because it serves a higher purpose. However, if we look at the life of Jesus, we see a God who fights against sickness, weeps at death, and submits to injustice.

Does it not provide a more logically and morally coherent view of God's character to see Him not as the designer of these tragedies, but as the 'Master Craftsman' who inherited a reality governed by binding constraints and chose to enter it to lead us through it?

See some of my formulation below...

The Two Universes

​Universe A (Non-Devastation Possibility)

​A conceivable mode of reality where:

​Growth, love, transformation, and “redemption-like” goods exist

​Without requiring prior devastation or suffering

​May involve:

​Different perceptual structures

​Non-conscious negative signaling

​Alternative valence weighting

​Status: Plausible, but not verifiable from within our world

​Universe B (Actual Reality)

​The world we inhabit:

​Suffering, loss, and devastation are real

​Meaningful goods are deeply intertwined with those conditions

​Status: Empirically undeniable

​Epistemic Constraint

​We reason from within Universe B

​Therefore:

​Our ability to evaluate Universe A is limited

​“Only imaginable” ≠ “impossible”

​Principle:

Epistemic limitation does not equal metaphysical impossibility

​The Fork (Control Question)

​If Universe A is genuinely possible:

​Either:

​God chose or permitted Universe B instead of A

​God did not have access to Universe A

Assalamualikum Alhamdulilah I am a Muslim and I know what I will say is shirk but a question keeps bugging me for a while which is
1)if everything has a creator then who created the creator
2)my family is Shia and there are certain opinions which I believe aren’t or shouldn’t be accepted in Islam though I am not sure I should leave the fold of being a Shia as my whole family is Shia which basically means I will be disowned .i have lost 2 of mu grandparents recently and both were practising Shia and had the signs of a good death
Honestly I am super confused about the 2 topics if anyone can help out would be helpful

I understand that Plantinga and Swinburne are major figures in analytic philosophy of religion. Craig could perhaps be added too, though he seems less academically central.

But I struggle to understand why their projects are still treated as live philosophical options rather than sophisticated defenses of inherited Christian belief.

I am not an expert in analytic philosophy, which is part of my confusion: even from the outside, many of the central moves seem vulnerable.

Plantinga’s free will defense seems to show at most that God and evil are not logically incompatible. But that feels like a very low bar. With enough auxiliary hypotheses, many strange beliefs can avoid strict contradiction. I do not mean to equate theism with flat-earthism, but a sophisticated flat-earther could appeal to distorted perception, instrument failure, conspiracy, or some possible-world scenario in which the evidence is misleading. That would not make flat-earthism epistemically plausible.

Natural evil makes this even stranger. If human free will does not explain earthquakes, diseases, animal suffering, etc., Planting's appeal to the possibility of non-human free agents — Satan, fallen angels, or something like that is at least bizarre. If someone explained depression cures by nocturnal fairies or missing guitar picks by mischievous elves, that person would not even be regarded as sane in an academic context. Why is the Satan/fallen angels a different move, except that it belongs to inherited Christian vocabulary?

Also, if Plantinga’s defense depends on libertarian free will, wouldn’t the falsity or implausibility of libertarian free will seriously weaken one of the most famous parts of his project?

Swinburne’s Bayesian project seems similarly questionable: the crucial priors and likelihoods often look less like independently motivated probabilities and more like theological intuitions being assigned numbers. Why should we treat those calculations as independent support rather than Christian-friendly assumptions built into the model?

So my question is methodological:

How can Plantinga and Swinburne still be considered serious philosophical interlocutors, rather than brilliant rationalizers of Christian belief?

Are their arguments really meeting standards that would also apply to other religions and extraordinary metaphysical claims? Or is Christianity receiving inherited epistemic privilege in philosophy of religion?

TL;DR: Plantinga and Swinburne seem to me less like neutral investigators and more like good rationalizers of inherited Christian belief. Plantinga lowers the bar to mere logical possibility, even appealing to Satan/fallen angels for natural evil, while Swinburne’s Bayesian arguments seem to turn Christian-friendly intuitions into probabilities. Why are these still treated as serious philosophical moves rather than examples of Christianity’s inherited epistemic privilege?

The following is inspired by 'Why Buddhism Is True", where Robert Wright makes a compelling case that evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology are compatible with the Buddha’s diagnosis of the causes of human suffering.

It's been proposed that the persistence of the 'Great Flood' myth across cultures may preserve cultural memories of real catastrophic floods.

My rough hypothesis is this: the story of Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden (as told in Genesis) is another myth informed by folk memory of real events. Specifically, could it be a mythic reflection of our transition from ape-like animal to self-aware humanity?

I'm not reading Genesis as literal history or science, but exploring whether myths can encode deep truths (alongside plenty of extraneous information).
I'll quote the relevant passages and then add commentary.
 
Genesis 2:8 – 9 "Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food"

The hypothesis: Our primate relatives evolved primarily in tropical forests where food is abundant. The diet of gorillas, orangutans and bonobos is at least 90% plants (fruit, bark, leaves, stems, shoots, seeds). Chimps are ~85% plant-based, though they do also eat insects and occasionally hunt for meat. The natural habitats of our ancestors are something like Eden: places of natural beauty and abundance, where food is easy to come by.

—
 
Genesis 2:25 "Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame."

The hypothesis: Presumably at some point humans (or proto-humans) felt no shame at public nudity, existing in a state of unselfconscious alignment with nature. Of course none of our closest primate relatives (nor any other creature) have ever developed clothing, modesty norms, or symbolic shame surrounding the body.
 
 —

Genesis 3:4 - 7 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."

The hypothesis: "Their eyes were opened" is a metaphor for the emergence of self-consciousness, the point when we began to see ourselves as separate from, rather than a part of, nature. This development didn't just give humans intellectual knowledge, but led us to perceive dualities: good and evil, self and other, naked and clothed, nature and civilisation.

In evolutionary terms, this could parallel the development of advanced human cognition: increased self-awareness, symbolic thought, and the ability to conceptualise both ourselves and the world around us.

—
 
Genesis 3:16 "To the woman the Lord God said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children.”

The hypothesis: From an evolutionary perspective, human childbirth is significantly more difficult, dangerous, and painful than childbirth in other great apes. One major reason is the size of the human brain and skull, combined with the constraints imposed by bipedalism and the structure of the human pelvis. As a result the maternal mortality rate of early human mothers (pre-medicine) would have been far higher than other primates. Even if mother survives labor unscathed, human infants are born comparatively underdeveloped and remain dependent for far longer than most other animals.

The same evolutionary developments that saw us diverge from our ancestors (larger brains, greater intelligence, increased self-awareness) also carried profound biological costs.

Genesis could be mythically expressing an intuition that humanity’s heightened consciousness came at a price. The emergence of the reflective human mind brought extraordinary capacities, but also suffering.
 
—
 
Genesis 3:17 - 23 “To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it. Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you,and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food... So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken."

The hypothesis: The development of egoic self-awareness drove us to explore beyond abundant environs that were our natural habitats. We moved out of the forest (symbolically leaving Eden), surviving and eventually thriving in different climates. Instead of living in alignment with nature, as apes do, we cultivate, organise and control nature using our superior intelligence and technology.

We first hunted and gathered, but of course one of the most significant revolutions in human culture was the development of agriculture. Farming is incredibly hard compared to just picking fruit from the trees. With the agricultural revolution came permanent settlements, food surpluses, social hierarchy, specialisation, large-scale civilisation... but also sustained labor (by the sweat of our brows we eat our food), as well as environmental destruction, inequality, and conflict.
 
—
 
Within this interpretation, the “Fall” represents the emergence of the human condition itself: reflective consciousness, technological capability, civilisation, and the suffering and alienation that accompany them. The same cognitive developments that enabled language, tools, agriculture, art, and civilisation may also have created the psychological sense of separation from nature I see in the Eden narrative. That’s an absence I often feel in modern, urban life, too.

This idea has been gestating in my mind for about a year now, so TBH I’m just happy to have finally got it out! Of course if it sparks any ideas or discussions that would be wonderful.

Note: I don't claim to be the first to ever think this - I suspect similar arguments have been made in the past. I'd be interested to hear where this idea might overlap with/contradict existing thinking in comparative mythology, evolutionary psychology, theology, anthropology, Jungian psychology, Buddhism, philosophy of mind, etc

I have been praying all these years but god is not answering it I lost all hope in god
So if anyone believe in god can you please prove it ? That God exist

Let’s say before you are born, you are given a choice to decide your religion.

What would you choose and why?

Would you prefer a religious or non-religious family?

Is there any religion you would not want to be born into? Why?

I’m asking this to learn how people think, so please keep the discussion respectful.

Physicist here: Science can fully explain religion (Big Bang → evolution → agency bias), but religion explains zero physics. Theists, how do you respond?

I’ve been thinking a lot about explanatory power lately. Science gives us a seamless, unified chain starting from basic physical principles:
• Big Bang cosmology → formation of galaxies, stars, planets
• Chemistry + abiogenesis → life
• Evolution by natural selection → complex brains with cognitive biases (hyperactive agency detection, theory of mind, etc.)
• Those biases + social/cultural evolution → religion, gods, rituals, and the persistence of religious belief across cultures

We can explain religion itself as a natural human phenomenon without invoking any supernatural entities. No special pleading required.

The reverse is not true. You cannot derive the laws of physics, quantum mechanics, general relativity, or even basic chemistry from the Bible, Quran, Vedas, or any religious text in a way that is predictive or useful. Attempts to do so usually involve heavy retrofitting.

This asymmetry feels significant to me as a physicist and philosophical naturalist. Science keeps delivering increasingly complete explanations (including explanations of why people believe in gods), while religion doesn’t seem to explain the natural world at all.

Theists (and anyone else): How do you see this? Does religion offer explanatory power that science lacks? Is the “science answers how, religion answers why” distinction still useful here? Or does this asymmetry actually favor naturalism?

Looking forward to thoughtful replies from all sides.

To understand the ultimate boundary of the secular worldview, we must first start with a basic axiom: there is a fundamental difference between the physics of our universe and the logic of reality.

Physical laws (like gravity, thermodynamics, and the speed of light) are contingent. They are like the software running inside a computer programme. A programmer could easily code a universe where gravity pushes matter apart instead of pulling it together.

Logic and mathematics, however, are necessary. They are not physical variables; they are the absolute foundational conditions for existence itself. Even an omnipotent programmer cannot code a "married bachelor," because it is a logical contradiction. Physics is the paint on the canvas; logic is the canvas itself.

When we observe our physical universe, logic dictates that a system bound by time and entropy cannot cause itself. It mathematically requires a First Cause; an uncaused Prime Mover outside the system to start the sequence.

When a secular materialist is backed into this corner and realises they cannot use contingent physics to explain the absolute beginning of reality, they will attempt one final, desperate manoeuvre. They will try to break the chessboard.

They will argue: "Human logic is just a biological interface. It is tied to our local spacetime. Who is to say human logic applies outside our universe? Perhaps in base reality, things can cause themselves, or square circles can exist. You cannot apply local primate logic to an incomprehensible outside."

If you are not paying attention, this sounds like a profound philosophical insight. In reality, it is a spectacular intellectual forfeiture. If we walk through this argument step-by-step, it completely collapses under its own weight.

And the reason goes as follows:

1. The Illusion of Time (Temporal vs. Ontological Causality)

The sceptic’s first misstep is confusing physics with mathematics. They will argue that causality ("If A, then B") relies on linear time, which is a physical variable of our universe. If base reality has no linear time, they assume causality evaporates.

This is a category error. They are confusing temporal causality with ontological causality.

Temporal causality requires time; like one domino hitting another. But logical and mathematical causality do not. The fact that a triangle's internal angles must equal 180 degrees does not happen in time. It is an instantaneous, structural necessity.

A Prime Mover is an ontological cause. It acts as the baseline foundation of the system, much like the underlying code of a video game simultaneously generates the digital environment. It does not need "linear time" to sustain reality. Logic transcends the simulation; physics does not.

2. The Myth of the "Square Circle"

Next, the sceptic will claim that our inability to imagine a reality without a Prime Mover is simply a hardware limitation of our biological brains. They will say, "Just because we cannot comprehend a square circle, doesn't mean it cannot exist outside the universe."

This is a failure of semantics, not a failure of biology.

A "square circle" is not a highly advanced, multidimensional shape that our primate brains are simply too weak to process. It is a contradiction in definitions. A shape cannot simultaneously have zero corners and four corners.

Asking if a square circle can exist in base reality is exactly like asking, "What does the colour blue taste like?" These are not deep mysteries of an incomprehensible cosmos; they are just meaningless sequences of words. You cannot use grammatical gibberish to prove that human logic is flawed.

3. The Epistemological Suicide Trap

This brings us to the fatal flaw of the secular escape hatch: it is completely self-defeating. You cannot logically deduce that logic might not exist.

Think about the mechanics of what the sceptic is doing: they are constructing a structured, sequential argument ("If our brains are constrained, then our logic is limited, therefore we cannot know the outside") to prove that structured, sequential arguments are invalid. It is the philosophical equivalent of using your vocal cords to argue that you do not have a voice.

If the fundamental laws of logic do not apply to base reality, then base reality can simultaneously have a Prime Mover and not have a Prime Mover. Every single statement you make about the outside world becomes equally true and false at the same time.

If you argue that logic is merely a broken, localised illusion, you immediately saw off the only branch you have to sit on. If logic goes, your counter-argument goes with it.

4. The Final Checkmate

This leaves us at the definitive endpoint of the debate.

When a materialist finally retreats to the position of, "We cannot trust our own logic because our brains are programmed to only understand the inside of the cage," the debate is over.

If this is their final stance, they have officially forfeited the playing field. They can no longer use reason, science, or deduction to argue against a Creator. They have abandoned atheism and retreated into total epistemological nihilism: a void where we know absolutely nothing and can prove absolutely nothing.

If a secularist must nuke the very concept of human reason just to avoid admitting the mathematical necessity of a First Cause, the thesis is already proven. The Prime Mover remains the only logical deduction left standing.

Freewill defense against the problem problem evil: God lets humans do evil things because he respects their freedom. Firstly, why is freedom so important it overrides all other moral considerations for God? I agree that a world where everyone is an automaton wouldn't have genuine goods; but I'm asking why freedom should override everything in all circunstances. A parent respects his child's autonomy, but still doesn't let him harm himself, because there are other important considerations in other contexts.

Secondly, suppose a reason was given to the first question. Aren't there cases in the history of humanity where, if God respected the freedom of the evil doers (the freedom of abusers, prosecuters, assassins, genociders, etc), he would have let the freedom of the victims be disrespected? In those cases, he isn't being neutral, he's actively choosing to respect one side and withdrawing from the other. If someone looked at the holocaust and said "God respects the freedom of humans to do evil things", I would ask "what about the freedom of the children to grow up, of people to practice their religion without persecution, of parents to see their children in their last moments, of families to be united?"

I'm focusing on the freewill defense for those cases of extreme suffering, because I think other defenses (like soul-making or "suffering for greater good") fail more explicitly on those cases. The people who died on the holocaust, for example, didn't have any growth coming from their suffering, nor did it lead to any greater good. The problem is not just the amount of suffering, but also its apparent arbitrariness and indifference.

Hey all so I’ve been looking to understand free will and I’m having trouble. Basically, God gave man a choice to follow him or suffer the consequences for not following him. I’ve seen some discussions of what the point of free will is and I’m confused!! Usually I see responses like “well God doesn’t want us to be robots.” So…. what’s wrong with being that robot? If there is just so much peace and love in heaven with God, why would anyone necessarily want free will? Besides, the devil was an angel and he chose to rebel, so either way there is still some free will??
Also the book of Revelations is so important to this question. The heavens, hell, and earth will all end one day and those that chose to follow God will be in His new world. So is there free will in this new world? I’ve seen many say no to this and also say that those in His new kingdom will be rid of the desire to go against him or have ungodly desires. If this is how the world will end, what is the point of this free will system?

Lately I’ve been thinking deeply about the way people perceive God, especially in relation to creation and life itself. The more I reflect on the Bible and the symbolism within it, the more I feel that many of the qualities associated with God align more closely with femininity than masculinity. This is just my personal interpretation and philosophical perspective, but I believe there are several scriptures and symbolic parallels that support the idea of God as female. This is because the greatest power attributed to God in the Bible is the power to create, sustqin, and take life away, and women are the human beings who most directly reflect that power. A man may provide the seed, but the seed alone cannot create life without a place for it to grow. Life requires a womb, nourishment, protection, blood, water, and the ability to carry and sustain another being. Just as the earth gives life through soil, water, and care, a woman’s body becomes the environment where life is formed. Because of this, I see the feminine as the closest earthly reflection of divine creation itself. To me, the Bible repeatedly hints at God through feminine and maternal imagery, even if many people overlook it. In Book of Isaiah 66:13, God says, “As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you.” This verse compares God directly to a mother, showing divine love through feminine care, nurture, and emotional protection. In Book of Deuteronomy 32:18, it says, “You forgot the God who gave you birth.”The imagery here presents God not only as creator, but specifically as one who gives birth, which is a distinctly feminine act. In Book of Isaiah 42:14, God says, “Like a woman in childbirth, I cry out, I gasp and pant.” Here, God describes divine power through the experience of labor and birth, comparing divine force to a woman bringing life into the world. In Book of Hosea 13:8, God says, “Like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will attack them.” This portrays God through the fierce and protective rage of a mother defending her children, connecting divine wrath with maternal instinct. In Book of Matthew 23:37, Jesus says, “How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings.” Even here, divine love and protection are expressed through feminine imagery. In Book of Isaiah 49:15, God says, “Can a mother forget the baby at her breast?… Though she may forget, I will not forget you.” God compares divine faithfulness to the bond between a mother and child, one of the strongest feminine images in scripture.I also believe Book of Genesis 1:27 supports my view because humanity was created in God’s image, “male and female.” To me, this means the feminine must exist within God’s nature, and since women alone carry the power to physically create and sustain human life, I see women as the clearest reflection of God’s creative essence. Throughout scripture, God is repeatedly connected to birth, womb imagery, nurture, wisdom, protection, labor, and creation of all qualities traditionally associated with femininity and motherhood. That is why I believe the Bible contains strong evidence and symbolism pointing to God as female.

I saw a post asking why people believe in God. I was raped as a child, tortured by a rogue military group when I was going through military training at the age of 18, and then diagnosed with a difficult form of schizophrenia when I was 25 yo in the military. This world gives us a seemingly endless list of reasons to give up, and according to too many historical accounts I’ve seen, it’s always been this way.

But there are lots of hints that official accounts may not be correct. Just because people can’t prove something like the spiritual realm exists, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. In the year 1700, no one knew about electromagnetic waves. Does that mean that they didn’t exist? I would argue not. The same argument can be made for anything that science can’t prove to be true, including the spiritual realm. It’s entirely possible that it just hasn’t been scientifically proven yet, and for all we know it may never be. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, though.

There’s also the fact that after so many millennia of horrible suffering (according to too many history books), the human race should have been done in a long time ago, simply from the sheer psychological weight of it all. But for some reason, it hasn’t been. The human race continues to recover, again and again.

Then there’s the fact that if there is no source of truth that exists outside of the human race and what it senses, then the only “proof” that humans ever have always eventually ends up pointing back around to itself. This argues that truth is purely evidence based, which leads to the fallacy I mentioned above about electromagnetic waves not existing in the year 1700.

These are just some thoughts I’ve had. I expect to get downvoted, but these are my personal observations, so I’m not really interested in being gaslit into negating my own personal observations. I expect that the comments will use my mental illness as a way to convince me that I’m not capable of seeing the world correctly, which would seem cruel to me. If your arguments are based on that, then you’re spreading hopelessness based on your own ignorance of how schizophrenia actually works, and hopelessness isn’t capable of creating anything of worth in life.

Some say believing in religion is “low risk” (possible gain, little loss). How do atheists see this? Are there real downsides to believing just in case, like time, values, or lifestyle?

If someone doesn’t believe, they risk missing out if a religion is true. But if they do believe and it’s wrong, what do they actually lose? Isn’t that more of a win-win? Curious how atheists see this.

My understanding of this idea in Romans 6:23 (which echos across the whole bible) is that it is our incomplete understanding; our lack of oneness with god; the disconnection between people, that causes us to sin. Because we are fragmented and imperfect, we fail to love each other and constantly hurt each other over and over again. So the only way to resolve this is through death where our identities might dissolve back into God/everythingness where we are atoned with it (I know this is more of a Buddhist framing of the afterlife, bare with me).

But it seems to follow that that equation also works the other way around: that separation (from god and from others) is a prerequisite for life. In other words to struggle and suffer and sin is how it feels to be alive--it IS life. And to find peace would be to die. Taoism seems satisfied with this answer but I suspect that Christianity is not (and I'm not sure I am either).

If life requires suffering then suffering would have to be a part of God's perfect vision, but it's not, right? Christianity has this concept of a new earth; new LIFE, which is distinctly free from sin. Metaphysically, I don't get it.

I have spoken to a couple of smart Christian friends about this and their answers suggested something important about us retaining memory of the suffering even once we are free of it, as well as the necessity of free will. I have to admit the theology of free will is still totally mysterious to me. In regards to memory--I don't really understand how memory could even exist in a perfect changeless state (i.e. heaven), but that seems wrapped up in the same issue of identity and life and relationship free of conflict (sin).

I'd really appreciate any insight on this issue, I feel like I must be misunderstanding something central to Christianity.

TLDR: How can perfection and separation coexist? 😂 hard tldr to formulate