I’m not using the Bible. I’m using the Transcendental Argument.

Math is just our understanding of how the universe works. Logic is just our description of how to correctly reason.

Okay. If these things are just descriptors then they aren’t universally true. If they exist and are universally true then you have no account for how that is the case. Either way you are using immaterial, metaphysical concepts to make the case that things that are immaterial and metaphysical don’t exist.

You can’t use the thing in question to prove that it exists.

Okay. What’s the evidence that logic or math exists?

To prove you have any good faith in your “critique”. State my argument back to me.

What is the standard of proof for the transcendental?

I just did using the transcendental argument. God is the necessary precondition for universals such as logic and reason. They exist therefore God exists and these universal metaphysics are a reflection of his divine mind.

What is the epistemic justification for your world view? Make sure not to use universals or subjective experience because the former is in question and the latter is arbitrary.

The axioms seem to hold though.

It’s impossible for you to know that.

We only need to build upon foundations of solid axioms.

Says who? How do they justify that claim?

Axioms are pragmatic and therefore used a lot in math and science but when you enter the realm of metaphysics (e.g. Philosophy) you have to ground your worldview in a justified true belief.

The flaw here is he’s all powerful. If you believe the Adam and Eve story (and even if not it makes a good small case argument) he created the garden, created the tree and fruit, created the serpent, knew they’d eat the fruit, knew he’d damn them for it and they’d suffer for it, and chose to do this anyway. He trivially could also have created a world where they chose not to. Even when given the freedom of choice, he knows what choice will be made (since time is not relevant to him) and can set things up to create any outcome.

You’re right to point out that God knew what would happen. In Orthodox theology, this is acknowledged—but it’s essential to distinguish foreknowledge from predetermination. God’s knows the outcome of free choices but doesn’t coerce them. His foreknowledge does not violate our freedom.

More importantly, God is not only omnipotent but all-good. And since God is the source of all goodness, the possibility of choosing anything other than God is the possibility of choosing evil—which is, by definition, a lack or distortion of the good. If we are to love God freely, we must be free to reject Him.

Therefore yes, God could have created a world where Adam and Eve never fell—but that would not be a world of genuinely free persons. It would be a world of perfectly programmed beings, and Orthodoxy insists that freedom is essential to personhood. Without it, love isn’t possible.

Also, it’s important to clarify: Orthodoxy does not teach that God “damned” humanity for the Fall. The consequence of sin is death and corruption, not divine vengeance. God’s response was not punishment but a rescue mission—the Incarnation. The “Tree of Life” returns in the Cross.

It’s not a risk. He knew what would happen. He created something where this specific thing is what would come to be with fill awareness and decided that’s what he wanted, if it’s true. It’s not negligence, it’s indifference to suffering. There is no other option for it than that, since he could choose to have made something where it didn’t exist. Maybe we can’t imagine what that would be, but that’s what it means to be omnipotent.

From our human perspective, it may seem this way. But God did not create evil or suffering—He permitted it as the cost of freedom, because only through freedom can there be love, growth, and communion. What matters is not just that suffering exists, but how God responds to it.

And His response is not indifference, but sacrificial love. In Christ, God enters our suffering, takes it upon Himself, and opens a path to life. The Cross is not God watching suffering from a distance—it’s God partaking and being the example for all of man for our sake.

Yeah, that’s fine if it helps you. However, every religion has this claim, so it isn’t evidence that it’s correct. That’s fine. Faith is by definition belief without evidence.

While it may not mean much to you I would be remiss not to defend Orthodoxy here. Faith isn’t blind belief or wishful thinking; it’s trust grounded in revelation, history, and experience. The resurrection of Christ, the lives of the saints, the enduring wisdom of the Church—these are not “proofs” in a modern empirical sense, but they are reasons for belief.

Furthermore I don’t know what your standards for evidence are but I encourage you to look at arguments like the Transcendental Argument for God. It argues that universals like logic, reason, and math are only justified if God exists. (e.g. X (God) is necessary for Y (logic, math etc). Y therefore X.)

If you deny God’s existence, you must account for the reliability of reason, logic, and abstract universals like mathematics. If these are simply “self-evident,” then you’re assuming the very thing your worldview has no means to justify. Furthermore without a transcendent source of rationality, why assume logic is binding or that it applies universally?

Believing in God is foundation to a worldview that relies on universals the alternative is arbitrarily granting yourself self-evident axioms.

From my other comment:

Arguments for God’s existence (such as classical theistic arguments) are not merely isolated truth claims—they function at the paradigmatic level, offering a foundation for knowledge itself.

If you deny God’s existence, you must account for the reliability of reason, logic, and abstract universals like mathematics. If these are simply “self-evident,” then you’re assuming the very thing your worldview has no means to justify.

Assuming you don’t believe in God…

without a transcendent source of rationality, why assume logic is binding or that it applies universally?

Basically you’re in no position to determine whether God is imperfect or not if you can’t justify the tools you use to make that assessment.

Assuming you’re a skeptic…

There’s no way to know the truth on this particular subject. [i.e. God]

Arguments for God’s existence (such as classical theistic arguments) are not merely isolated truth claims—they function at the paradigmatic level, offering a foundation for knowledge itself.

If you deny God’s existence, you must account for the reliability of reason, logic, and abstract universals like mathematics. If these are simply “self-evident,” then you’re assuming the very thing your worldview has no means to justify.

No, you can use logic to prove certain things can’t exist. If there’s a contradiction, it can’t be correct, for example.

Only if you can justify the validity of logic in your worldview. But without a transcendent source of rationality, why assume logic is binding or that it applies universally? You’re using a tool (logic) without explaining why it ought to work or why it’s trustworthy in a purely materialistic or skeptical framework.

I’m not making a universal statement. I’m making the statement that someone who values truth should seek truth. That seems self-evident.

Okay well this is just an opinion then. My main point here is that you can’t propose any “oughts” without a justification.

Again. I’m being nit-picky but I feel like this thread is meant to invite some apologetic banter.

It being a meme doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason for the argument.

I understand. I’m more commenting on how it’s usually framed as a gotcha as if Christians have never thought of this before.

Redemption from what? Whatever it is, God had control over it happening. Why did it happen? He is trivially capable of creating a universe where there is no need to be redeemed. Why is one where redemption required the one he chose to create? Dismissing something as just being a meme does not actually answer the question.

The real answer to what is essentially the Epicurean “Problem of Evil” lies in Freedom and Love. God created human beings with genuine freedom, because only freely chosen love is real love. This means that the possibility of rejecting the good (e.g. evil) is not a flaw in creation but a necessary precondition for freedom.

The point is, God knew we would create the struggles. Is he omniscient? He knew it would happen. Is he omnipotent? He could have created a situation where it doesn’t happen. Is he benevolent? He wouldn’t want it to happen.

Yes. He is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good. But benevolence doesn’t mean preventing every possibility of suffering. In the Orthodox view, God’s goodness is shown not in preventing freedom, but in enduring suffering with us, and transforming it into life and healing. God knew the risk of creation, yet chose to create and then chose to redeem through suffering love. That’s not negligence—that’s the Cross.

Yes, this is what the church teaches. I’m well aware. Does it make sense?

Not in a tidy, rationalistic way—and Orthodoxy is okay with that. There’s a deep apophatic element to the theology: the idea that not everything about God can be explained in human terms. But what does make sense in experience is the way the Church helps us encounter God through prayer, sacraments, and love. Evil isn’t ignored—it’s faced head-on, and transformed in Christ.

There is argumentation beyond the transcendental argument to believe, for example, the Christian God. It has to do with prophesy, metaphysics, theology etc

You have to believe in the trinity to be a Christian. Regardless you aren’t going to find any group of people who are perfect. Christianity is all about how people are sinful and must commit daily to emulating Christ even though they will continuously fail. Regardless it sounds like you are opening yourself up for massive disappointment by casting such a wide net. There are many “Christian churches” which are just jokes if not outright scams. Christians can’t control who calls themselves a Christian. I encourage you to investigate the Eastern Orthodox church which has a rich tradition and clear direction for how the Orthodox should live their lives. It is Ancient Christianity that holds in high esteem prayer, fasting and alms giving. There is real spiritual meat on the bone.

I’m saying that your assertion isn’t justified (e.g. it’s just a subjective opinion). That you can’t expect to apply the scientific method to something that transcends the material world and that there are indeed logical arguments for why someone should believe in God as opposed to not believing in God.

I’m an Orthodox Christian.

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” Proverbs 9:10

Define “Christian Church”. This almost invariably comes from former evangelicals in my experience.

Everyone on earth that has adopted or converted to any religion has done so with a feeling as their reason.

Assertion

Nobody has ever converted due to cold hard facts or some research on the afterlife.

Applying material requirements to the metaphysical and transcendental

Proof is unexisting by definition of faith

Transcendental Argument for God makes an affirmative pre-suppositional argument for God.

This is why a “feeling” should not be the reason you convert to a religion. You should be skeptical of Christians that argue their conversion on feelings alone. I certainly had feelings that I attribute to the Holy Spirit when I was an inquiring Christian but I frankly tried to ignore or diminish them to stay sober minded. Relying entirely on emotionalism or charism is historically discouraged as you could just as easily be swayed by demonic forces (e.g. prelest). It’s one of many critiques of charismatic Protestantism and the LDS church.

Just for the sake of argument… According to what standard? Yours? Why should we follow your standard?

Yes the Orthodox view of God accepts his imminence and his incomprehensibility all in one. It is a humble, mystical, experiential and all-encompassing approach to life. It is therefore extremely difficult for us stubborn humans to adhere too 🙃

I recommend Stalker and Solaris by Tarkovsky. Even though they are secular films the depth of Orthodoxy is present in their soul searching, repentant and deeply ponderous nature. Even the Solaris remake does a decent job just because of the mechanics of the story. I saw it years before becoming Orthodox and it stuck with me. We should all be deeply concerned with the state of our souls.