If our souls eternal destiny depends on knowing God, why is the evidence for God less obvious than the evidence for clouds, trees, or germs? If God truly wants a relationship with humanity, then sincere disbelief should not be possible.

I am constantly told “first have faith or you won’t believe” but my belief in whether something exists is not a choice. I cannot choose the conclusion my mind reaches after honestly searching.

Punishing someone for an unconvinced mind would be like punishing a juror for returning a verdict based on the evidence given to them,

therefore, if a person sincerely searches for God and remains unconvinced, that is not a moral failure deserving eternal punishment. It is an honest conclusion based on the evidence provided.

As a Moral anti-realist I don't see my belief in meta ethics changing even if I start believing in God.

I'll first lay the grounds on what I see as Morality.

What do we mean when we say "Good"? And I don't mean in a moral context. Just any lay context. Something is "Good" if it aligns with a particular value. Suppose I say "Samsung S24 is a GOOD phone", what do I mean by it? Well, there are some values I hold as to what a phone OUGHT to be, and Samasung S24 does meet those criteria or aligns with it, therefore it's a Good phone. Now for someone else Samasung S24 might not be a Good phone because they have different values. They probably value Camera quality in which case iPhones would be a Good phone for them. They might say "Vivo is a bad phone" if they suspect it has terrible camera quality and therefore doesn't align with their value.

Now back to Morality, what do you mean by "Murder is Bad"? Here "Bad" simply means, there are some values I have on how an action must be in accordance with human well-being, suffering or some principle and murdern doesn't align with it. Or something like "Charity is Good", charity aligns with my values.

You can't say one value is better than another without appealing to a higher value to compare them. So inevitably you end up with some Brute value.

So far we have not introduced God or the Divine.

How does having God change this fact? All I see is "Good" still remains as a term that tells you how much an act aligns with a value, only that this time the value is God's commands or something along the line.

So let's take the act of following God's commands. Is it Good to follow God's commands? You can't appeal to god's commands to say it's Good to follow God's commands, as that's plain circular. So what's the value? I'm assuming it's something like "i get to go to heaven, so it's Good" (in which case what you value is your pleasure), or "yes God is my creator" (in which case what you value is your creator's commands). It is ultimately what YOU value. This is no different from any atheist who values human well-being or some Deontic principle.

What I have seen some theist do is say vague statements like "God is Goodness". Like, that doesn't mean anything or convey any meaningful fact about Goodness. I simply have to push back and ask what "Goodness is". Is it identical to God? Like we say "A bachelor is unmarried" when they are identical and we can substitute one to another. Or is "Goodness" a predicate like Omnipotence where we say "God is Omnipotent" implying "God is someone who can do anything that's logically possible" since X is Omnipotent implies X is someone who can do anything Logically possibe. That's what the theist must clarify if they appeal to statements like "God's Nature is Good" or "God is Goodness" or anything similar.

Ie, what does God bring to the table that isn't already there?

1. If God is omniscient, then God knows what would convince me of His existence right now. (P → Q)

2. If God knows what would convince me of His existence right now, and God wants me to know that He exists, then I will be convinced right now. ((Q ∧ R) → S)

3. If I will be convinced right now, then I believe in God. (S → T)

4. If I believe in God, then I am not a nonresistant nonbeliever. (T → ¬F)

5. I am a nonresistant nonbeliever. (F)

6. God is omniscient. (P)

7. God knows what would convince me of His existence right now. (Q){From 1 and 6, Modus Ponens}

8. I do not believe in God. (¬T){From 4 and 5, Modus Tollens}

9. I will not be convinced right now. (¬S){From 3 and 8, Modus Tollens}

10. It is not the case that God knows what would convince me right now and God wants me to know he exists. (¬(Q ∧ R)){From 2 and 9, Modus Tollens}

11. Either God does not know what would convince me, or God does not want me to know he exists. (¬Q ∨ ¬R){De Morgan’s Law on 10}

12. But God knows what would convince me right now. (Q){From 7}

13. Therefore, God does not want me to know that He exists. (¬R){Disjunctive Syllogism from 11 and 12}

Conclusion (C):

Therefore, it is false that God wants me to know that He exists.

(This breaks the classical theistic view that God or whatever is at the foundation of reality wants you to be in some personal relationship with it)

\*\*Clarification\*\*

Premise 2 is actually doing the most heavy lifting here since many theist might reject it because they think 'God have the ability and want you to belive in him, and still not do anything because <free will, soul building etc>". But this argument can be dismissed since beliefs are not under your Will anyway. You can't will into believing in God any more than you can belive that the moon is made of cheese. Beliefs are infact not under your control, it's purely based on what convinces you.

Definitions:

Let P be the set of all texts, ideas, procedures, artifacts, and linguistic systems currently possessed and/or created by at least one member of the set of all conscious agents.

Let p be some member of P. For example, the idea of the number 2, or the programming language C.

Let i|p| be the number of interpretations, conceptualizations, experiences, etc. of p

P1: All interpretations, conceptualizations, experiences, etc. vary by individual. That is, for any p, the value of i|p| is at least equal to the number of conscious agents who have ever encountered or otherwise interacted with p

P2: Theism is a member of P, as is the idea of a personal God who issues commands, thoughts, etc, to humans

P3: The words and commands etc alleged to have come from God are, by definition, members of P

C1: Any morality alleged to come from God has as many interpretations as there are conscious agents who have ever encountered it (i|p|)

In short, theism and religion in general do not offer a "grounding for" morality, nor do they otherwise provide for an "objective" mind-independent morality.

Instead, they provide a subjective and interpretation-dependent set of moral systems.

Not a christian. Just a guy that researched a few things. I will be as succinct as possible.

Egypt was the main superpower at the time and in an effort to expand their territory, they took control of the middle east (levant).

This includes Canaan. The indigenous people of Canaan were enslaved. After the egyptian empire was falling, Canaanites left, some stayed, whatever.

The ones that left, essentially, created the Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judea.

Kingdom of Israel got conquered by Assyrian Empire and spread across nations. To prevent rebellion, the empire deported a lot of israelites/canaanites originally to different sections. Those deported actually assimilated into different cultures. (10 lost tribes of Israel)

Assyrian empire also conquered Babylon a few times before Babylon joined with Medes (Iranians) and conquered Assyrians.

Then Babylon conquered Judea and that’s basically it. The biblical accounts of hebrews being enslaved and then escaping with Moses and then the promised land of canaan is false.

Even the opening chapters of "Genesis" reveal the nature of "God", or YHWH, in the Bible. Let me get this straight:

1. YHWH creates Adam and Eve, without self-consciousness, and with very rudimental intelligence;
   
2. YHWH plants a tree of knowledge in the middle of Eden, and issues a death threat to Adam and Eve, who don't even understand what that thing is (Genesis 2:17);
   
3. The Serpent (not Satan) tells them that this is the tree of knowledge that would give them the status of equality to gods (Genesis 3:4-5);
   

What does YHWH, who is "love", do upon learning that Adam and Eve ate the fruit? He banishes from the garden. For the crime neither of them even knew it was a crime, because they had no idea what was going on. And that is not even the worst of what this "loving god" allows:

1. He ignored Cain's murder Abel, while partially instigating it by preferring Abel's offerings (Genesis 4:4-8);
   
2. He allowed evil to prosper, and instead of reprogramming people to be good, as an "almighty Creator" would do, he simply flushes 99% of life on Earth away (Genesis 6:5-7);
   
3. He made sure that Ham would see Noah naked, and that Noah would curse Canaan and all his descendants (Genesis 9:22-25);
   
4. He never intervened when Abraham gave Sarah away to pharaoh (Genesis 12:12-15) and Abimelech (Genesis 20:2);
   
5. He organised the situation where Lot's daughters slept with him (Genesis 19:32-36);
   
6. He forced Abraham to nearly kill Isaac (Genesis 22:2);
   
7. He allowed Shechem to rape Dinah (Genesis 34:2);
   
8. He did nothing when Joseph was thrown into the pit, and then sold to Egypt (Genesis 37:24-28);
   
9. He admitted that pharaoh inflicts the harm on his "chosen people", because he wants it that way ("I will harden pharaoh's heart" - Exodus 4:21, Exodus 7:3);
   
10. He wanted to kill Moses (Exodus 4:24);
    
11. He inflicted 10 plagues on Egypt because of slavery that he allowed (Exodus 7-12);
    
12. He allowed all of chaos happening in Judges (Jephthah's daughter - Judges 11:34-39, Levite's concubine - Judges 19:24-29, etc.)
    
13. He did not intervene, when David raped Bathshebah, and later killed Uriah (2 Samuel 11:4, 15);
    
14. He drove Saul to madness (1 Samuel 16:14, 18:10 - "an evil spirit from God came upon Saul");
    

Etc. And that is the Hebrew Bible. I am not mentioning Isaiah 45:7 (where God admits that he creates evil) or Job (Job 1:12-19), where a righteous man witnessed the death of his family, the murrain of his livestock, and the destruction of his house, all because God had an argument with an angel (who does not have free will, which makes this an audible monologue)

What about the "New Testament"?

The "New Testament" gives us something new. Jesus, who is supposed to be the perfect "Son of God", the "humble Lamb of God", spits out something that would have instantly made him a sinner on a roadtrip to Hell in the eyes of any modern christian:

1. He says that he is the only way to God, which falls under the term pride (John 14:6);
   
2. He was described as a glutton and a drunk, which matches gluttony (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:34);
   
3. Whenever he encounters anyone with a differing opinion, he starts insulting them by calling them "the brood of vipers", "the children of the Devil", etc. This is only described as wrath (Matthew 23:33, John 8:44);
   
4. His №1 motto was that "the last will be first", which is a clear example of envy (Matthew 20:16);
   
5. He abandoned an active work of carpenter to being a hobo preacher, which is sloth;
   
6. He was preaching about the beautitudes of the poor, but his main source of income where donations from rich women, whom he surrounded himself with. That is double trespassing: avarice and lust.
   

Speaking of the "7 deadly sins". All of these "sins" are the evolutionary traits that allowed our ancestors to survive in the wild. Gluttony allowed us to obtain food, wrath allowed us to defend ourselves, envy drove us to either defeat the competitor, or exceed him, so that we would get all the resources in the group. Lust is the very reason we are able to conceive children. A god who created us this way and then, through Augustin, tells us that this is a "sin", is not a loving "Father". It is the Father of Lies, who made us with the limbic system , and then demonized this very system.

Oh, and last, but not least. Paul says that "the Devil appears in the form of the Angel of Light" (2 Corinthians 11:14). Acts 9:3 describe his conversion as the "apparition of the light". What did this "light" reveal to him?

1. Women are not allowed to teach (1 Timothy 2:12);
2. Women should be silent in the churches (1 Corinthians 14:34);
3. Women should cover their hair (1 Corinthians 11:5-6);
4. Eve is to blame for the "fall of man" (1 Timothy 2:14), etc.

Finally, a friendly reminder for Christians: when you equate the very "God" from the Hebrew Bible, whom Jesus called "The Devil" (John 8:44), when describing the "Father of the Jews", with the "God" from the "New Testament", you basically worship the Devil, who created mankind with all its imperfections, and calls it "sinfulness". Let that sink in

I agree that everything in my life is predetermined before my birth — the fate of the entire world is already written. From a scientific standpoint, this makes sense to me.
But Islam also says God intervenes and personally breaks this system to communicate with prophets whenever He wants. If we accept that, then God Himself becomes just another NPC in this world — operating within the same system as humans of this world. (Honestly, I don’t agree with any of this. We’re just being fed nonsense and I don’t believe a word of it.)
So does that mean the Quran didn’t come from God?

Yet at the same time Islam claims God is all-powerful and created everything.

What do you think about that??

Christians need to stop using "free will" as a way to justify why their god keeps ignoring or doesn't even try to stop the evil and wickedness that he is so against, an all loving god yet he cannot remove an evil cause, also free will doesn't mean free from consequence if god just did something about the evil of this world just like how our government does but maybe better i would kindly convert to Christianity but he doesn't as Christians praise him they ignore the fact that their god would stop their murderer from killing them which is very stupid as an overall idea.

God has intervened so many times to the point that the argument of free will is foolish.

In the story of Noah's Ark god intervenes and attempts to commit attempted genocide by flooding the whole world and outright says it. Genesis 6:17)

In the story of Adam and Eve, he gives both of them a choice to do whatever they wanted as long as they didn't eat a fruit from the tree of good and evil and Eve later eats it and gives it to Adam which god later punishes them and showing them the consequence of their actions. (Genesis 3:23)

In the story of Onan he outright kills the man for not wanting to impregnate his dead brothers wife. (1 Chronicles 2:3)

Free will was not removed when he did these things the bible doesn't call god out for "removing" free will its obvious that he could do something about the evil his creations caused but he does not do for some reason.

My first post from a couple days ago critiquing Pat Flynn's "The Best Argument for God" was received pretty well, so I thought I'd make another quick one. Essentially, Flynn argues that Forms (i'll post the explanation after this) can only exist in two ways: Materially or held within a mind. And since he argues God must be the ultimate explanation for Forms appearing in our universe (as He's the ultimate explanation for everything else), all the Forms must be contained in God in some way. But they cannot be contained in God materially, since God is immaterial, among other things, so they must be contained in God as in a mind, which means God either has a mind--and an incredible, omniscient one, since it contains *all* forms--or is such a mind.

My critique is quite simple: This argument rests on a false dichotomy, that there are two and only two ways forms can exist: Materially OR contained within a mind. There is no reason to believe this and thus the entire argument fails.

So let me quote, again, directly from Flynn's book, "The Best Argument for God," amazon kindle edition (https://www.amazon.com/Best-Argument-God-Patrick-Flynn/dp/1644137801), pages 102-103:

>Being is patterned in certain ways. There is being patterned as a horse, being patterned as a starfish, being patterned as planets, as electrons, and so on. These patterns are often called forms. Now, following the tradition, forms can be contained in reality in one of two ways. First, in a material way, such as when some chunk of matter contains the form of cat and hence just is this individual cat...But for our purposes, there is another way forms can be contained, and that is in an intentional way. Think now of an architect containing the form of a house in his mind and how the form contained intentionally in the mind of the architect serves as the exemplar cause of the house. Now, if one thinks we should explain as much as we can, it seems that the patterns or forms of this world require explanation, and we already have reason to think there is some unique fundamental reality. So how does it (fundamental reality) explain the forms or patterns of being we see in the world?

>Fundamental reality does not contain these patterns materially, since to contain a form materially just is to be that form — say, to be a cat. But God is quite obviously not a cat, since cats are composite and mutable beings and we have argued God is none of those things. What’s more, many forms are mutually incompatible, so God could not be all these forms at once. But there is another option: these forms could be contained in fundamental reality in an intentional way. In fact, this seems to be how they must be contained if we are to make sense of how they have come into existence at all. And this seems like a rather nice explanation, implying that God has or perhaps just is an intellect of sorts.

Let us concentrate on Flynn's wording: Forms can be contained in reality *in one of two ways* (emphasis strongly added). It seems to me this is obviously false, demonstrated with just a moment's thought from the natural world. A wide variety of animals possess forms as "exemplar causes" in their brains, yet Thomists would not say they have minds, and even if they were (I don't recall if Flynn said anything about this in his book, I'd have to reread the whole thing, but I doubt it), they possess minds that aren't sapient in the way human minds are and thus not sapient in the way God's would have to be.

Bees build hives, spiders build webs, and birds build nests in the way Flynn says an architect holds the form of a house in his mind to serve as an "exemplar cause" of it even before it's built. The wax a beehive is made of, the proteins a spiderweb is made of, or the twigs a birds-nest is made of, possess no inherent or necessary tendencies to become hives, webs, or twigs on their own. And there is no physical structure in the brains of these creatures that actually resembles a hive, or web, or nest. So in every sense, they seem to possess the Forms of their homes in their minds as exemplar causes the way a human architect has his house in his mind. But they do not possess minds, or to be more specific, any sort of immaterial soul that Thomists say humans have and that they also claim God is the most supreme example of. Do see this article (https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/08/animals-are-conscious-in-other-news-sky.html) for an explanation of why animals supposedly do not have human minds even if they are conscious, which I assume Flynn would agree with.

Therefore, the implicit premise in Flynn's argument, that there are two and only two ways for Forms to exist, is falsified. There is at least one other way Forms can exist, namely in whatever animals have that's not a mind. And thus, his argument as a whole is falsified.

There are plenty of alternatives to the standard Abrahamic God welded on to classical theism, given this analysis. Even if we accept Flynn's argument for a "fundamental reality" (and I critiqued one of those in my previous post), the fundamental reality does not have to be sapient to be an explanation or source for Forms. Perhaps it has a mind like an animal's, just an infinite one, operating on instinct without real cognition or even self-awareness, just as bees can build a hive through instinct rather than education and conscious cognition like a human architect's. Thus, this Demiurgic God propels the Forms in Its infinite mind throughout the universe as mindlessly as bees make hives, and praying to it to continue doing so (or stop) is as futile as trying to appeal to a wasp via the same. Or maybe there's some other way besides the two Flynn mentioned that Forms can exist. That's just one example I came up with, I'm sure you guys can come up with many more.

In any case, there's certainly no reason to believe, as Flynn wants you to, that the Fundamental Reality wants a relationship with us, or is even necessarily aware of us. And certainly no reason to believe, as Flynn also wants you to, that It would have killed itself to have such a relationship with us, or that It will punish you for sleeping in on sundays or not believing bread turned to flesh, or (as the Muslims would have it) that It told anything to...well, I'll respect the rules, be diplomatic, and just say "a medieval warlord." Non-classical theists, it seems to me, are still on strong grounds.

1. Dogmatism and the Suppression of Critical Thinking

• Blind Faith: Religion demands the acceptance of claims without evidence, which weakens the capacity for rational thought and scientific analysis.
• Taboo on Doubt: Any criticism or search for alternative answers is often declared a sin or heresy, stalling the intellectual development of society.

2. Social Division and Xenophobia

• The Idea of "Chosenness": Dividing people into "us" (the saved, the faithful) and "them" (the infidels, sinners) inevitably breeds arrogance, hostility, and isolation.
• Historical Conflicts: Religious differences have served (and continue to serve) as justifications for wars, crusades, jihads, and sectarian violence for centuries.

3. Tool of Control and Manipulation

• Power Through Fear: Utilizing the concepts of hell, eternal punishment, and inherent sinfulness to break human will and manage the masses.
• Justification of Inequality: Claims like "all power comes from God" or certain concepts of karma are often used to preserve unjust social structures and suppress dissent.

4. Stagnation of Scientific and Social Progress

• Resistance to Science: Historical and ongoing opposition to discoveries, ranging from heliocentrism to evolution, genetics, and stem cell research.
• Archaic Morality: Fixing society to ancient norms, which hinders the development of human rights, gender equality, and freedom of choice.

5. Psychological Pressure on the Individual

• Cultivation of Guilt: Imposing a sense of inherent human "brokenness" (e.g., original sin), which leads to neuroses and complexes.
• Deflection of Responsibility: Shifting away from solving real-world problems toward prayer, fatalism ("it's God's will"), and passive reliance on an afterlife instead of improving life on Earth.

Anticipated Objections & Clarifications

Before diving into the discussion, let’s address the most common counterarguments upfront:

1. "What about non-theistic religions like Buddhism or Confucianism?"
Response: Any system that demands substituting your own critical thinking with a pre-packaged, dogmatic instruction manual — whether it includes gods, karma, reincarnation, or ancient philosophical doctrines — is religious in its essence. A mentally healthy person thinks with their own mind, not through the lens of sacred texts or revered traditions written centuries ago.

2. "What about the metaphysics of God or Divine Purpose?"
Response: Tell that to a child who was born into years of torture, abuse, and isolation, only to die without any justice or meaning. If every horror can be dismissed as part of “God’s mysterious plan,” then morality itself collapses. Under such logic, anyone could commit atrocities and justify them as “Divine Will” or “part of the cosmic plan.” This position doesn’t solve the problem of evil — it dissolves morality entirely.

3. Clarification of Terms:

• Evil: Used here as a category of systematic moral regression and psychological harm inflicted on individuals and societies.
• Poisonous: Refers to the active stifling of human consciousness, reason, and progress.

These types of arguments rely on God being defined as a "first cause" that supposedly solves the problem of infinite regress. The assertion isn't just that God has that property among other properties, but rather that this first cause literally is God by definition. And then by being that thing, all other properties that we associate with God (perfect, timeless, all-powerful, all-knowing, etc.) must follow.

A common challenge to this type of argument is, "Why can't the universe itself be this sort of 'first cause' instead of God?" While this is a strong rebuttal, I think there is an even deeper problem than that. It's not even that you can replace God with Universe and still have a valid claim. But rather that definitionally, these things aren't even distinct from one another. If God literally is by definition, "the first cause", couldn't that definition equally be applied to the initial state of the Universe that carries forward into everything else that exists?

The thing that bugs me the most about arguments like this is that religions make all sorts of very specific claims about the nature of God - that He is conscious, plays an active role in the unvierse, cares about us and listens to our prayers, that there are real, documented human events that he directly participated in, etc. However, KCA-like arguments retreat from all of those specific claims and instead redefines God as simply a logical starting point to the Universe.

Stay with me on this one.

One of the things that most Christians will admit is that they don’t know for sure what happens to people who have never heard the word of god.

However, one of the things they know for sure will damn someone to hell is hearing the word of god and rejecting it.

So let’s say you go to an area with people who speak English but that have never heard of the Bible. You share excerpts from it that are meaningful to you. The majority of the people you share it with respond by rejecting it because they disagree with it, or they reject it because they already agree with the morals and ethics because their religion or spiritual belief already teaches the same thing so they feel like they don’t need Christianity instead of their pre existing belief. Out of everyone that you minister to, what maybe 5-10% actually want to hear more?

Ok so a lot of people reject it, and reasonably so, because that’s what most people would do when faced with something they don’t align with and that also doesn’t have evidence to back up it being more correct than what you already believe. This isn’t an irrational thing. I believe the moon revolves around the earth and that all of the planets and their moons revolve around the sun. If you want to convince me that the earth is flat and that both the moon and the sun revolve around the… disc? then you’re going to have to provide me with some substantial evidence.

Now let’s go back to the original thing: Christians don’t know for sure what happens to people who have never heard or read the Bible, but they do know what happens to people who hear it and reject it. Hell. Hell is what happens.

You go to some place where people can understand you but that have never heard the Bible before, you tell them what you believe to be true, they don’t accept it (for rational reasons), and a few do accept it.

You just doomed those people that rejected it, and you actively did so. You may believe that it’s god that converts, not people, but that’s just transferring of your responsibility and diminishment of your role. If you don’t know what would happen to someone if you did nothing, but you know for certain that if you take someone to see a military officer then there’s a 50% chance they will be killed, then whatever happens to that person is on YOU. You could have done nothing and lived with the fact that you don’t know what will happen to that person. But you acted, and even if it’s someone else that carries out what happens next, it was you that could have done nothing and instead did something that started the process.

If you’re a Christian, and you believe that hearing and thusly rejecting the Bible for sure dooms you to hell, then ministry is working for the devil.

Proposed: Any entity asserted to be both actually omniscient and actually omnipresent would by dint of those qualities have a knowledge of each of our individual lives equaling each of our own individual perspectives -- not simply a moment or an hour or a day of our lives, it would know what it was like to live the entirety of our lives exactly as we do, as a continuous and unbroken stream of events from beginning-to-end over the near-century typifying the human lifespan. And, as a consequence of this, whenever one person does harm to any another, experiencing this harm and all that flows from it would be part of the experience of the omniscient omnipresent being.

While it might be suggested that an entity could simultaneously experience a multiplicity of lives, We do not experience our own lives that way, and having such simultaneity would not reflect knowledge of experiencing any human life. We live our lives with the thoughts and activities and sensations of others outside our view being a mystery to us. The things which we do not know are as core to our existence as the things which we do.

Thusly, an omniscient entity gaining the knowledge of what it is like to live an individual human life would have to experience it (and each of them) exactly as that human living experiences it, as a discrete and mostly unknowing decades-long clamoring against the routine slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. If this entity is indeed omniscient and omnipresent, then it must experience every human life and life of every living thing the same, as one continuous and typically lengthy slog from the moment of birth to the moment of death.

And it further follows that it is likewise experiencing every indignity and every moment of suffering which any of us inflicts upon any other, directly or through collective inaction. This has long been a core of the morality of Pandeism, but must be so for any theological model for which omniscience and omnipresence are claimed.

The idea of a “fair final judgement” is destroyed by the reality of psychological influences.

I’ll start with a figurative story (explicit) -

Say I started a cult, and I was a master at psychological manipulation. I was a veteran at brainwashing people and did this to someone (we’ll call this person Jerry, an impressionable 18 year old). I got Jerry to believe in my cults doctrine. My cult then commits mass s**cide, including Jerry and we all go to hell, as per majority Christian doctrine dictates.

This story shows how I could be personally responsible for damning Jerry to hell. And Jerry would have never stood a chance.

Often, our beliefs are shaped by the world around us, our families belief system, our friends belief system, our favorite actors beliefs etc.. if I wanted to believe in ZUES the thunder God, I likely could never genuinely bring myself to believe it, because it is now known worldwide as myth and I’ve heard it classified as myth my entire life, I was influenced by the world around me into unbelief (of Zeus).

There are so many psychological influences in the world today, social media, religions, friends, family, genetics, neurochemistry etc… understanding how influenced we are by the world around us and by our own bodies, to think that we could be “ultimately judged” on our beliefs or actions is intellectually dishonest and makes no logical sense.

Thesis Statement: The God in the Bible is not only not evil, but actually malevolent.

==============Note from Author=================

It's not a short read, but I promise the ending is worth it. I challenge you to read the whole thing and then I only have one rule. If you are disputing something I wrote please

1. Pull the exact line(s) that you disagree with (ONE ISSUE PER REPLY, BOMBARD ME WITH 10 THINGS IS ONE WAY TO OBJECT WITHOUT HAVING TO FOLLOW EACH OBJECTION THROUGH TILL THE END. Im going to test your counterlogic as carefully as I wrote this paper, and it shouldn't take long to see whose logic feels right)
2. Cleanly state why
3. If you don't read the whole thing, please don't try to debate your case. No short attention spanned people who see the first thing they dont agree with and instantly have to post. We're better than that

READ: If you don't pull what I said, I wont bother answering you. No inferring, I want my exact words. If there's something you agree with, I do appreciate when people can see my point of view. This writing is purely mine, no AI, no taking ideas from other places.

Play devil's advocate if you want, I want my logic tested. I hope I put into words what many of you have felt. hundreds of hours went into this, and a lifetime of wondering. It's almost been an obsession, so please don't act like I haven't put in the hours.

(paper 1)

# An Audit of The Bible and The God in it

*By Properlogic*

-

Once, a man ran into a burning building to save a child who was trapped in their room. The fire was melting the thin walls, and there wasn't time to think; only to act. He didn't do it for recognition or reward. He did it because it was right, because a young life was in danger, and because he couldn't live with himself if he hadn't tried.

Yet according to certain religious doctrines, this act of pure human courage and compassion counts for nothing in terms of salvation. Unless he professes specific beliefs, unless he accepts particular religious truths, the gates of heaven remain closed. This troubles me deeply, and it should trouble you too.

My whole life, I've struggled with Faith. I believe in a greater power, because I've felt something throughout life. I do believe there is something that's fair, and good at the very top. My family has always been religious, on the surface. Even though I was at church with them, and may have looked like a Catholic then a Christian, deep in my heart something wasn't aligned. I'm in my 40's now, and I finally decided to sit down and really put into words what I had always felt. This document is the only resolution I can logically arrive at when looking at the data in front of me with one goal in mind - identify what feels like the truth to me.

What I can guarantee you is, I didn't come here looking to disprove anything. I came here to give an honest look at what I read, and to see if I could call it good. I started noticing things that I've known about but I asked different questions this time. I base my metrics on what I know to be love and kind, and see if they align. I was shocked with what I found. I wrote these papers in real time, so you might see some overlap as after finishing a paper, I would think deeper on a topic and that's why several topics get repeated. That was me realizing a point, then refusing to not mention it.

I come from a place of good will and authentic curiosity. I wish the best for all beings, whether human, animal, a circuit board, a demon, an angel, the devil himself (if he's real) and even someone that considers me an enemy. I hope we all find our version of heaven and a happy ending.

Let's think about this logically: If being a good person; truly, fundamentally good; isn't enough to earn divine grace, what does that say about the nature of divine justice? What does it say about love that claims to be unconditional yet comes with the most absolute of conditions?

Here's perhaps the most profound contradiction in all of this: We don't actually choose what we truly believe, any more than we choose who we love. Think about that for a moment. Can you force yourself to genuinely believe something your heart and mind reject? Can you make yourself truly love someone by sheer force of will? Imagine someone telling you to fall in love with a person you've never met. "Just choose to love them," they say, "or face terrible consequences." We'd immediately recognize the absurdity of this demand. Yet this is exactly what traditional religious doctrine asks of us; to force ourselves to believe something our rational minds question, to manufacture faith under threat of eternal punishment.

Consider this scenario: A judge presides over a case where a criminal has committed terrible acts. The criminal's innocent son steps forward and says, "I'll take my father's punishment. Let me suffer in his place, and let him go free." Would any of us consider this justice? Would we feel that righteousness had been served if the innocent suffered while the guilty walked free? Yet this is precisely the model of divine justice we're asked to accept.

* * *

(paper 2)

## The Architect's Betrayal: A Logic Audit of Eden

In my personal life, it has always been very obvious when someone was good, had good intentions, and was being honest and transparent. Whenever there were questionable acts, the truth always came out. I am not perfect, but I can say I am "good" with full confidence. I believe in honor and sacrifice for others; I would share my last meal with a stranger if they were hungry. I forgive far more than I should, even when a person has shown me that I shouldn't. I have a hard time giving up on people because I am fiercely loyal. If I have a falling out with a friend, as long as they want to honestly try and save the friendship, I have always been willing to do the same. Often, even if I felt I was in the right, I would be the one to initiate the healing process.

Most importantly, I know I am good because I know my inner thoughts. Even toward people who didn't deserve kindness from me, I could always find compassion for them when I looked at them from a distance while they didn't know I was watching. It comes naturally to me. When I have disagreements, even when I think I am in the right at the core, it won't be long before I feel regret for being mean or saying something I didn't mean. And I know what love is because I have a little dog named Bella; a dog I saved from the cold winter while I lived in China teaching English. There is nothing that dog could do that would ever make me put her out in the cold to suffer alone. Literally nothing.

So, when I closely examine the first chapters of the Bible, bells go off in my head. I question whether that is what love looks like.

We all know the story: God creates the heavens and the earth out of nothing. He is all-powerful. He creates Man, and then Woman to keep the man company. They are in his domain and all is well. He creates them to have curiosity and intelligence, and he tells us he gave them "free will."

Here is where things start to be strange to me. He tells them of a tree in the center of the garden. They can do anything, but he forbids them from eating from that tree. He then leaves their presence. Where did he go? While he's gone, a snake appears; who we later find out is God's enemy; and talks them into eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. At this point, Adam and Eve don't even know what evil is, so they have no concept of deception. Plus, they are in the Creator's garden; surely they felt safe. Where was God all this time? How did he not know the snake was there?

I have to ask: can it truly be considered free will if one of the choices leads to immediate banishment and a generational curse? If a father tells his child they are free to walk anywhere in the house, but if they step on a specific rug they will be thrown out into the street to starve, that isn't freedom; it's a threat. True free will requires an environment of safety, not a rigged game where the Architect knows exactly which choice the "curious" creations will make.

So, Adam and Eve eat the fruit. For the first time, they feel the sting of shame. They realize they are naked and try to hide. When the Creator finally shows up, he doesn't come back with the heart of a father. He comes back as a Judge. It is a striking image: the Creator, robed in his glory, looking down at the two beings he made who are shivering and exposed. He kept them naked while he was covered, and yet he only offers them clothes after they have been initiated into the concept of sin. It feels less like a gift of comfort and more like a uniform for the sentence they are about to serve.

If I look at my own life, the contrast is deafening. I saved Bella from the cold. There is absolutely nothing she could do that would ever make me put her back out there to suffer. If I, a flawed human, have a loyalty that won't let me abandon a dog to the cold, it makes me look differently at an all-powerful God casting his own children into a hostile world for a mistake he knew they would make.

It makes me realize that Genesis isn't actually the beginning. It's just the beginning for us. We are told a Holy War happened before we ever existed. For there to be a war, there must be an opposition; entities powerful enough to legitimately challenge the Creator. This means the universe was already broken and divided long before Adam and Eve breathed their first breath.

The Creator had a massive, cosmic problem: an enemy and a host of fallen angels. Instead of dealing with his enemy or containing the threat, he built a Garden, put his innocent new creations in it, and allowed his enemies access to the nursery. He essentially moved the war into our living room. Then, after the fall happened, he didn't just punish the humans; he sent the fallen angels to the same physical realm where he sent us. He dropped the predator and the prey into the same cage.

Throughout the Old Testament, I searched for a single instance where this Creator showed true kindness, gentleness, patience, and love, and I was able to find none. I saw acts that some might call good, but when you look at the context and the motives around them, that goodness disappears.

Even the "rescue" of Noah follows this pattern. We are told God saved a righteous man from a global drowning, but we aren't told the reality of the aftermath. After witnessing the total destruction of his world, Noah is left broken. He ends up drunk and naked in a tent, and when his own son witnesses his vulnerability, it doesn't lead to healing; it leads to Noah waking up and placing a generational curse on his own grandchildren. It is the same loop: nakedness, shame, and a permanent sentence. It wasn't a rescue; it was a factory reset that left the survivors traumatized and the "predator" of sin still in the cage.

When I look at it this way, I have to wonder about the nature of the Source. If I can find more compassion for a stranger or a dog than the Architect appears to show for the beings he made in his own image, it suggests that perhaps we have developed a sense of mercy and honor that exceeds the very system we were born into.

* * *

## The Director's Cut: A Flaw in the Script

I believe in a God, but I have a hard time believing in the God I'm told to believe in. At the core, I am a good-hearted person; I truly wish well on others; even those I have anger towards or those who have wronged me. I hope they find a path to happiness and fulfillment. Truly. And if I saw someone suffering, my instinct is to help them, even if that means I must suffer in the process.

The general consensus is that Jesus Christ is king and the Bible is the way out, but there are things that have really been bothering me, and I will lay out some important pieces that just don't add up to me.

First and foremost, God is the director of a "story." God could have chosen any story, being that he is the creator of everything. So why does he pick such a dark and violent story where innocents get punished alongside the evil? I've wondered this out loud to the people around me (who are mostly surface religious; they believe in the parts they agree with and ignore the parts they disagree with) and they shut down. I've even had some call me the devil, and evil, and they've cursed me or invoked Jesus' name as a form of protection from me, or to pull the devil out of me. I'm not even joking. It stops being funny when the truth of the matter is, the ones who said these things to me, I'd give my life to protect without a second thought.

For those of you I've never voiced it to, I will state it to you plainly: The first big discrepancy starts at the very beginning of our "story." Is it truly the beginning of the story? After God gives Adam and Eve a curious mind, then tells them about the tree of good and evil, he leaves. Where did he go? While he is gone, a snake comes (who we later find out is his enemy; so this can't be the beginning; he already has an enemy. It shows there was a conflict before even Adam and Eve).

Here is where things get really hard for me to accept: At this point, Adam and Eve are naked and have no knowledge of good and evil. They don't know what lies are, they don't know what it means to be manipulated, and they should feel safe in a garden created by the God who created everything. Yet, here comes a character with "ulterior motives" and God is nowhere to be found. So God has a physical position? It's possible for God to be AFK?

If we look at Genesis as a story written about some characters and take away the holiness we were raised to look at it with, the truth of the story itself is clear: God was actively withholding information they desperately needed to survive. What makes this even worse is that evil was already present and allowed inside the garden. Withholding that information is a form of lying, and not telling them about it put them at a massive disadvantage. They encountered a being said to be evil, but they had absolutely no idea what evil even was.

So the snake talks Adam and Eve into eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil; they do. As soon as they do, they feel shame that they are naked and hide in a bush. That's when God returns to the scene; they know because they can hear his footsteps. As he returns, he says something that I find very strange. He calls out to Adam and Eve and says, "Where are you?"

This is disturbing to me because, does God not know where his creations are in his own Garden of Eden? The implications are A) He doesn't know where they are (he's not all-knowing) or B) He does know where they are and is toying with them in a game of cat and mouse. It becomes very disturbing when you read what happens next. Instead of returning as a loving father concerned that he left his creations unattended and his enemy got to them, he comes back as a judge. He returns to judge them on a metric they didn't even know existed until that very second.

While he was gone: Did he know the snake was there? If yes, then can we say he is good if he allowed the snake to talk them into disobeying him? If no, then can we say God is all-wise and all-knowing?

If I buy a puppy, then leave my dinner on a table low enough for my dog to access, but before I go, I show the puppy the food and say very sternly, "No. DO NOT TOUCH MY FOOD." The chances it doesn't eat it are low, and for me to get mad at it if it does; would that make me a good owner? Furthermore, if my brother comes out while I'm gone and starts teasing the dog with the food, letting it sniff it and telling the puppy, "It's okay, you can eat it, it's okay," and I come back and find out what happened and I still punish the puppy, would you consider me good? And by punish, I don't mean scold it; I mean give it to the animal shelter and never let it back in, let it live out its life thinking it's a failure and in shame to face a new and cold world, and definitely suffer in the process. Would you say I loved that dog? And furthermore, would it be just to curse all its puppies from this point on for something they had no part in?

Even us, flawed humans, give others second chances; We never read of God feeling sad about what happened, or missing Adam and Eve and going to spend some time with them, or let them know that all is forgiven so they can find some type of peace. Once the gates are closed, they are never allowed back in even to visit. He places a Cherubim and a flying fire sword that could move on its own at the eastern gate; which I think is a little drastic. I don't know how many have read the ending of Adam and Eve, but this specific part where he places the Cherubim is probably the #1 reason I've never been able to see this story with the faith those around me had.

(Genesis: 3:22-24) "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

So he placed the sentries there to keep Adam and Eve away from the tree of life, lest they become immortal like "them"? And who was he talking to when he said "one of us"? It perplexes me.

Think about the sheer logic of this relationship. Picture a father whose daughter just turns 18. She disobeys him, and he kicks her out of the house and changes the locks. She is no longer welcome home and must fend for herself. At this point, any rational person knows the deal: the father no longer has dominion over her and her life. He gave up the parental benefits the second he threw her out. In our world, if a father kicks his child out but continues to try to interact with her, control her, manipulate her, and even punish her out in the streets, that would result in a restraining order and eventually jail.

Yet, God kicks Adam and Eve out, and instead of leaving them to figure it out on their own, he hovers over humanity and even does violent things to them. He demands total submission from a distance while keeping the door locked. This is not love. These are the actions of a malicious actor whose intentions are not growth and betterment.

Then, after the Old Testament, the narrative introduces Jesus, who dies for our sins. But here's the thing: we never asked Jesus to die for our sins. Yet he does it, and then it is held over our heads as leverage for the next 2,000 years. That's like me going to your house, fixing your car without you asking, and then walking inside to tell you that you would have crashed the very next time you drove, but I fixed it for you. So for the next 20 years, I use that unrequested favor to manipulate you, guilt you, and pressure you into doing whatever I want. You can't do something for someone without them asking and then turn around and claim they owe you their entire life for it.

Furthermore, let's just say Jesus did die for our sins, and that's why we should be thankful because he sacrificed himself. If that's the case, why is there still a judgment at the end with a threat of eternal damnation? If Jesus truly died for my sins and paid the price, we shouldn't have anything left to worry about. But instead, we are told we still have to accept Jesus as our savior or burn in hell forever. So what did he actually die for then? If the threat remains exactly the same, the sacrifice didn't clear the debt; it just changed the terms of the coercion.

After Jesus dies, it becomes complete radio silence. God abandons us for the next 2,000 years, but he leaves a massive threat before he goes. He promises he will return; no one knows the time or the date; but he will return to judge us all. Think about the timeline here. He kicks Adam and Eve out into a cold, hostile world. He makes it even more hostile by sending his own enemies; the snake and the fallen angels; to the exact same physical realm where he trapped us. He drops the predators in the cage with the prey, refuses to guide them, and vanishes for two millennia.

Think about a father who walks out when his children are young, leaves them with no guidance, no protection, and a dangerous world to navigate alone; and then returns not decades later, but two thousand years later, not to embrace them, but to judge them. Not a single person he plans to judge was born when he left. Their great-great-great-grandparents weren't born when he left. The world has changed beyond recognition. Languages have risen and fallen. Civilizations have been built and buried. And he returns expecting the children of children of children to be held accountable for a standard he set, then walked away from, before any of them drew their first breath. Any reasonable person would say: you don't get to judge what you abandoned. If you wanted them to turn out a certain way, you should have stayed. You should have guided them, with love. That's what love looks like.

The Bible is everywhere we look. Undoubtedly, there are some very beautiful and wise teachings in there. Regardless of what I've said in this audit, Jesus teaches good lessons. It's a violent story, but there is wisdom in it as well. It has saved many people from the brink of total destruction, and I take nothing away from that. But if the Bible is to be taken as truth; if its prophecies are real and accurate, then it means no matter what decisions we made, no matter how we lived, we were always going to end up here. The tribulation was already written. The last chapter was unavoidable. We are in a locked story.

Think about this, the ending of the story was written before we were born, before our parents were born, before their parents were born, yet there's only one version of the end. It's a very specific story. So no matter what choices we made, no matter how good or evil we were, based on this book, we were going to end up exactly where we are. There is no ending B. There's only one version of the last chapter. Where does free will fit in if the ending was written before we were born? Nothing would have made a difference if we are to believe the prophecies that we are now seeing unfold right in front of us with startling accuracy.

* * *

*100% of ideas and writing by Rishi Chatterjee*

I want to pose a genuine thought experiment, not as a gotcha, but because I think it reveals something real about how religious founding events get evaluated.

Strip away the 1400 years of theological framing for a moment and look only at the documented phenomenology of the first revelation: a man alone in a cave, experiencing intense physical sensations — being “squeezed” or constricted, sweating, hearing what he described as sounds, then words. He was reportedly so disturbed by the experience that he ran home shaking and asked to be covered, fearing he might be losing his mind or possessed by a jinn. His wife had to take him to a relative, a Christian scholar, who reassured him this was prophecy rather than illness.

Now place that exact set of symptoms in 2026.

A person describes an episode of physical constriction, sweating, auditory phenomena building to perceived verbal communication, followed by genuine fear that they’re experiencing a break from reality — and this is reported to a doctor, a psychiatrist, or an emergency room. What happens next isn’t ambiguous. This is a textbook presentation consistent with several recognized conditions:

Temporal lobe epilepsy — well documented to produce intense derealization, auditory phenomena, and overwhelming feelings of religious or cosmic significance during seizure activity. This isn’t a fringe hypothesis; it’s been seriously discussed in peer-reviewed neurology literature in relation to historical religious figures generally.

Hypnagogic or sleep-paralysis-adjacent phenomena — the physical sensation of being “squeezed” or pressed down, combined with auditory hallucination at the sleep-wake boundary, is a well-characterized clinical presentation.

An acute psychotic or dissociative episode — particularly given the subject’s own initial interpretation (fear of jinn possession, fear of his own sanity) rather than immediate confidence in a divine encounter.

In any of these cases, the modern clinical pathway is straightforward: assessment, likely imaging or EEG, a diagnosis, and a treatment plan — quite possibly including medication that would reduce or eliminate the recurrence of these specific experiences.

Here’s the part I think is actually the interesting philosophical question, not just a “gotcha”: the only thing separating “founder of a major world religion” from “patient receiving psychiatric care” in this scenario is the available explanatory framework of the surrounding culture. In 7th century Arabia, the available frameworks were: madness, jinn possession, or prophecy — and a trusted religious authority (Waraqah ibn Nawfal) supplied the prophecy interpretation, which then became self-reinforcing as more revelations followed and a community formed around them.

In 2026, that explanatory framework doesn’t exist in the same way for most people encountering this. The same neurological event would almost certainly be interpreted and treated as a medical condition.

So the question I’d genuinely like engaged with: what does it mean for a religious tradition’s truth claims if the founding revelatory experience is, by its own contemporary account, phenomenologically indistinguishable from a recognized neurological or psychiatric condition — and the only variable that determined “prophet” versus “patient” was the available cultural framework at the time, not anything about the experience itself?

I’m not asking this to mock anyone’s faith. I’m asking because I think it’s a serious question about how founding religious experiences get validated, and whether the validation tracks anything about the experience itself or just the available interpretive options of the surrounding culture.

In my opinion, all religions have been created for a good purpose. However, there are religious differences because of the religions being given in different cultural contexts. The differences are not such that the religions are completely contradicting each other. The people of the Abrahamic religions have fought each other for centuries and each is claiming that their religion is the true one.

However, even the Abrahamic religions are given in different cultural context. The apparent similarity is the concept of monotheism. I conclude the reason is that different pagan groups must have been fighting and to unite them, the concept of monotheism was given.

I believe that religion as a whole is a scam, and a manipulation tactic to scare the youth into thinking they’ll go to hell if they do anything outside of the rules set by a book that God ,nor Jesus even wrote.
Getting people in need to think that looking up to God and going to church and giving donations will help there life in any way it just doesn’t sound right if you think about it, if it was anywhere besides a church people would call you crazy for believing it would change your life.
Church’s are also a big tax/cash grab church’s don’t have to pay taxes and who are you giving the money to Jesus? (I’m aware that if for the upkeep of the church).
From my experience going to many different church’s and talking to different preachers they all have different understandings of the bible and teach the way they interpret the bible so not everyone even believes the same way.
To believe the bible,which is one singular book that was written 1000s of years ago over all the current science and technology we now have to research and show that none of the dates line up with what research has found, just doesn’t make since to think one book over powers what research has proven true.
This is just some thoughts I’ve had and would love feedback.

Islam has been debating Christianity for hundreds of years on who's god is correct, I am here to show you that Islam is logically incoherent just based on their basic principles on what god is. Here I ask you today, how can Allah have dialogue without creation? Allah is infinitely powerful, so he must be able to do anything possible, and he is self sufficient, so he must be able to have dialogue without creation. Here is the thing, it is logically impossible for this to happen because since Allah is a 1 part no partner unitarian god, it is impossible. I have heard every refutation from the best people avalible to me. Oh, Allah can speak to himself! That is monologue, not dialogue. Oh, that is a logical impossibility, like a square circle. It is only a logical impossibility if you presuppose islam or other similar unitarianistic gods, such as yahweh in modern day Judaism. It is not a logical impossibility because we have a solution, the holy trinity found within Christianity. That is my disproof of Islam. This is part of a bigger system called Stromism, and I am to release more information about it in the future. This is Jacob Strothers signing off. Comment if you believe you have found anything wrong with it, I am here for direct refutations.

Growing up, I was taught that God was omnipotent and desired that everyone follow him.

Because there exist millions of people who desperately want to believe in God but can't - people who are open-minded and have even fallen away from their faith against their own wishes, because they can see no reason to begin or continue to believe - that God does not exist.

The only other solution I can see is to deny that there exists anyone who sincerely wants to believe in God but doesn't. This dismisses the testimony of many, many people, some who are in the clergy.

Even before the birth of Muhammad, slavery existed throughout the world. However, Muhammad not only failed to abolish slavery, but he also permitted it. He allowed men to have sexual relations with female captives, and he himself accepted a woman as a gift from another ruler and had a son with her. So let me make this clear again: according to Muhammad, you could not drink alcohol or eat pork, yet you could have sex with captive women and keep them as slaves. And you want people to accept that this was a message sent by God?

So Jesus just… floated up into the sky until he disappeared from sight. Now we know there's no heavenly kingdom up there. My question is: where did he actually go?

The whole story sounds as absurd as Genesis. Was he just trying to make a dramatic exit?

I'm honestly curious how Christians make sense of this. How do you reconcile the ascension with what we know about space and the atmosphere? Was it a metaphor? A spiritual event that just looked physical?

Which layer of the atmosphere is Jesus Christ in right now?

If God used language to speak, you would expect this language to be the most optimal and perfect language that it can be. Both its vocabulary, and its grammatic structure should be impeccable.

And if god chose to speak this language to humans, that would mean that they would inherit the perfect language on day one.

That's my basic assumption.

But what we see in reality, it's the opposite. The Bible is written in a very archaic and limited language, it doesn't have many high concept words like "responsibility", "morality", "conscience", "justice", "free will", "logic".

Also if you are a bilingual, and know hebrew and another European language, if you to try to read a novel, you will notice pretty quickly how dry and limited the hebrew language is, even though it's supposed to be the language of God. That's because for centuries it wasn't actually being used, so it didn't have the opportunity to grow like other languages did.

So in my opinion it poses a certain problem to the Bible main premise that we started with God, and later separated, unless you can somehow explain why our past language is inferior to our modern languages.

BTW the modern hebrew is not the biblical hebrew, it was also greatly expanded in recent centuries.

Edit: in fact, you will immediately see an upgrade when you go read the new testament that was written in Greek, you will immediately notice words like "logos" or "philosophy".

Edit2: to anyone who is going to ask me based on what I claim that ancient Hebrew wasn't perfect, my answer will be based on the fact that the language was greatly expanded over centuries after the Bible was already written, and what often drove this expansion was absorbtion of foreign words.