Foundations in debate for Muslims vs Atheists

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


I'm just going to post some small posts below which will be some foundations for Muslims insha Allah, so they know where they stand in debate against atheists and some agnostics (who may believe in God but not a religion.)


if i stop posting all of a sudden, u can find em all here insha Allah:

http://idawah.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=6

[- Qatada -]

Domino Theory


Imagine a row of dominoes lined up in a row (they're the creation), the first 1 in that row needs to be pushed by a force in order for the rest to fall.

That first force will be a push of a human (or anything putting weight or pressure against the 1st domino), and after that first push - all the other dominoes will fall in order.


That's a good comparison as to how the beginning of the universe (or the creation) is dependant upon another force [i.e. God] to allow the universe to 'begin' (with events one after the other/dominoes falling one after each other) and continue to be sustained.

(Atheists don't know what caused the universe to begin, and anything they say is not based on evidence but based on personal opinions only. Because they do not know what was 'before' the universe or big bang, and they have no solid proof for their opinions.)


http://idawah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=721

[- Qatada -]

When you're in debate, especially with atheists about different topics - you need a starting point.


They will say that the starting point of the debate is that there is no God, so you have to prove that there is one in order to convince them.


But this isn't true at all:

Some will even claim atheism isn't even a paradigm but the default starting position. They are obviously wrong, Agnosticism (believing in a God) is the default starting position. Atheism is negatively biased towards the existence of God whereas theism (relligion) is positively biased.

The difference is, at least the theists acknowledges that their view is a belief.

http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/brainwashing.htm

That's a really good point to make, since the person who believes in God knows and says that they know they require faith to believe that He [God] exists.

From there, all you need to do then is to explain why you feel Islam is the correct religion from all the rest. Since the default starting point in the debate is agnosticism, not atheism.




As my friend always says.. Ha! lol


http://idawah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=445

[- Qatada -]

Who 'created' God?


If they ask who created God - tell them we take Allah as a God because He is uncreated. If he was created He would not be God, and therefore we would not take him as God. This is our belief, and it is a much more convincing belief than doubt (of the atheists) who have no answer.


Because we cannot see God, it doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. 'Absence of proof is not proof of absence' - as the debate argument goes. There can be someone behind a door and although you can't see him, it isn't proof that he isn't there.

We cannot see emotions physically, but we see their product; tears, smile etc. The hormones in our body cause us to get these feelings, however the feelings cannot be physically seen except through their product i.e. tears, laugh etc.


Similarly, we see the universe around us, and how it is sustained and controlled for so long - & we believe that this is the product of an All Powerful, Knowing and Wise Creator. This is our belief.



Why doesn't God show Himself then?

Allah tests us and sends guidance to us -Will we obey Him (by doing good and abstaining from evil) without seeing Him? This is part of our test. If Allah was clearly watching us, while we watched Him - then none of us would even feel inclined to sin out of awe and fear for Him.

We know it requires faith to believe in Allah without seeing Him. Yet there are many signs (aayaat) that He has given us which help us in accepting and strengthening in this faith. These will be discussed later insha Allah (God willing.)

http://idawah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[- Qatada -]

The reason why God is God is because He is perfect.


In arabic, an illaah is anything which is worshipped. Worship consists of being a slave (abd), and doing anything which your master commands you (ibaadah.)


The only true illaah who can be obeyed is the One who is Perfect, this is why Islam does not permit the worship of the creation.

That's why, God is known as Al-Illaah (Allah) - the One and only true God.



Since God is not like His creation in any way, and He is Perfect. There is none similar or like Him in any way - this is a sign of His Uniqueness. So none shares His Power, Knowledge, Wisdom, or any of His Attributes.


For One to be Perfect, they can not have an equal in any way. So those who claim that God is similar to His creation - they are contradicting this concept.



There are 2 extremes throughout the many different religions in the world;

1) This is the extreme in which 'god is similar to the creation.'

This is the claims of some christians who say Jesus son of Mary is God or the ancient Greeks who claimed that god had a family, or others who say that we can serve idols because these idols are 'god'. They use the claim that 'everything is God' because the creation is within God himself!

However, this is false because if humans, idols or the creation was God - then doesn't the Big Bang explain that the universe had a beginning?

Also, some claim (i.e. in some aspects of hindusim) - God came to life by the energy of 'Om' - so if God had a beginning, then can that really be an attribute of One who is perfect? Doesn't Perfection imply that One is not dependant upon another? (i.e. in this context, 'god' is dependant upon that energy source.)


So how can God be God if He has human attributes? This is falsehood, because the only reason why God is God is because He is NOT similar to His creation.



2) The other extreme is that there is none like God, therefore God cannot have any attributes. This includes many religions like Sikhism, and even some Islamic sects which strayed such as the Mu'tazilah [the philosophers.]

These people attempt to defend God but because of this extreme caution, they argue that He has no attributes. So they deny that God has Knowledge, Wisdom, Control etc. because all these attributes - the creation has them also.

The above is another extreme.

Islam is the answer to all the confusion that has occured throughout history;


The answer is in the Qur'an;

There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer.

[Qur'an Ash-Shura 42:11]

He has many Attributes, but there is none Like Him in sharing these attributes.

So when He is the Seer, Hearer, Knower, Powerful etc. - He is in reality all of these, however - there is none like Him in these attributes in any way. We do not know the 'howness' of these Attributes, but we accept them as they are. We cannot comprehend God, so we accept them without knowing the details.


This is God's Perfection, a perfection which people throughout history have differed about. And this Qur'an was sent down to unite mankind on what they differed.



And Allah knows best.

[AntiKarateKid]

Excellent posts! COuld you perhaps discuss the everpresent friend of every atheist... the " WHy does Allah punish us if he loves us" thing

[Tornado]

Are we allowed to comment or is this just one way?

Domino Theory


Imagine a row of dominoes lined up in a row (they're the creation), the first 1 in that row needs to be pushed by a force in order for the rest to fall.

That first force will be a push of a human (or anything putting weight or pressure against the 1st domino), and after that first push - all the other dominoes will fall in order.


That's a good comparison as to how the beginning of the universe (or the creation) is dependant upon another force [i.e. God] to allow the universe to 'begin' (with events one after the other/dominoes falling one after each other) and continue to be sustained.

(Atheists don't know what caused the universe to begin, and anything they say is not based on evidence but based on personal opinions only. Because they do not know what was 'before' the universe or big bang, and they have no solid proof for their opinions.)


http://idawah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=721

Imagine a row of dominoes lined up in a row (god), the first 1 in that row needs to be pushed by a force in order for the rest to fall...etc
You need to realize that you have 0 problems accepting the design of god doesn't need a creator. I'm sure there are threads about this. This leads to the concept of infinity. Why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is: We humans ain't that smart, we don't know why it's so.

When you're in debate, especially with atheists about different topics - you need a starting point.


They will say that the starting point of the debate is that there is no God, so you have to prove that there is one in order to convince them.


But this isn't true at all:

Some will even claim atheism isn't even a paradigm but the default starting position. They are obviously wrong, Agnosticism (believing in a God) is the default starting position. Atheism is negatively biased towards the existence of God whereas theism (relligion) is positively biased.


The difference is, at least the theists acknowledges that their view is a belief.

http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/brainwashing.htm

That's a really good point to make, since the person who believes in God knows and says that they know they require faith to believe that He [God] exists.

From there, all you need to do then is to explain why you feel Islam is the correct religion from all the rest. Since the default starting point in the debate is agnosticism, not atheism.




As my friend always says.. Ha! lol


http://idawah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=445

Agnosticism is believing in a god? Who knew? Agnostics state that there is no evidence for the non-existence and no evidence of the existence for a god. Standard position? You can be agnostic about everything... You make a claim, say you saw an UFO, it's your job to prove it. Question:Sorry if this sounds harsh but, are you an agnostic about Santa or are you a-Santa? (don't believe in Santa). Using you logic, our standard position would be agnostic about Santa...My position is I don't think there is a god and not I know there is no god.
Atheists are atheists because there is no evidence for a god. There could be one, but if there is no evidence, you can't say for sure there is a god.

Who 'created' God?


If they ask who created God - tell them we take Allah as a God because He is uncreated. If he was created He would not be God, and therefore we would not take him as God. This is our belief, and it is a much more convincing belief than doubt (of the atheists) who have no answer.


Because we cannot see God, it doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. 'Absence of proof is not proof of absence' - as the debate argument goes. There can be someone behind a door and although you can't see him, it isn't proof that he isn't there.

We cannot see emotions physically, but we see their product; tears, smile etc. The hormones in our body cause us to get these feelings, however the feelings cannot be physically seen except through their product i.e. tears, laugh etc.


Similarly, we see the universe around us, and how it is sustained and controlled for so long - & we believe that this is the product of an All Powerful, Knowing and Wise Creator. This is our belief.



Why doesn't God show Himself then?

Allah tests us and sends guidance to us -Will we obey Him (by doing good and abstaining from evil) without seeing Him? This is part of our test. If Allah was clearly watching us, while we watched Him - then none of us would even feel inclined to sin out of awe and fear for Him.

We know it requires faith to believe in Allah without seeing Him. Yet there are many signs (aayaat) that He has given us which help us in accepting and strengthening in this faith. These will be discussed later insha Allah (God willing.)

http://idawah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18

You can't convince an atheist if you don't have evidence. The non-existence and the invisible do look very much alike. Of course you can't disprove god, you can't disprove anything, it doesn't mean it exists.


I'm truly sorry if that sounds harsh but none of the above are actually convincing.

[Trumble]

I'm truly sorry if that sounds harsh but none of the above are actually convincing.

I'm afraid he's right. If you are serious about these being the foundations for debate, you need something rather better.

Just to take the first one; it's even easier to sink it than Tornado suggests. You say

That's a good comparison as to how the beginning of the universe (or the creation) is dependant upon another force [i.e. God]

How could you, or anybody else, possibly know that a row of dominoes is a "good comparison" to the beginning of the universe (assuming it ever had one - the case is not closed)?! You can't; you are are using an analogy that is totally unsupportable.

This is our belief, and it is a much more convincing belief than doubt (of the atheists) who have no answer.

As a debating position this is puerile. It quite obviously is NOT "more convincing" to atheists! The purpose of such debate is to convince those who do not agree with you. The rest of what you say in that post doesn't even address the question.

The answer is in the Qur'an..

See above. Exactly how will that convince an atheist!

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
This is the way I see it: if the universe was created via a big bang, who lit the fuse?

Theists: ''God did it''
Agnostics: ''Don't know, don't really care''
Aetheists: ''this big bang just happened''

So, at least theists have an answer to this question. Whilst aethiests provide a criticism to the question (which is great for debating and analytical purposes), they do not answer it - infact, it just makes you question even further. Not that I have a problem with asking questions, but sometimes when someone asks you what's 2+2? they want an answer.

[Azy]

So, at least theists have an answer to this question.

Having an answer is pointless unless it can be shown to be the right answer. I could pick an answer out of thin air if you like but it doesn't have any meaning.

I don't see what there is to gain from debating issues of blind faith on a logical basis, particularly Islam vs atheism.

I can see how both of these are intuitive ideas, from an Islamic point of view the world is a very complex place and beyond the means of humans to create, for the atheist the deterministic mechanical processes and the great void of space.

However, both of these are beliefs, not evidence based (atheism is the [i]belief/i] in no god), so why would one try to convince the other using evidence?

Agnosticism is a slightly different proposition in that it holds that things are true when they can be shown to be so. Adherents of Islam or atheism could try convince an agnostic, but since their beliefs are not based on evidence how would that work?
The only way there could be any debate or 'convincing', is if all sides opened up to the fact that we may believe some things to be correct when they are not and find a way we can all work towards finding out what the truth is.

[- Qatada -]

Excellent posts! COuld you perhaps discuss the everpresent friend of every atheist... the " WHy does Allah punish us if he loves us" thing

:salamext:


Question:
If God is so kind and loving, why does He allow evil to occur on the earth?

Answer:


God is the Kind, Loving, yet He is also the Most Wise. He says in the Qur’an (translation of the meaning):

..It is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

[Qur'an 2: 216]

We see from this verse that since we are only humans, we are limited to the present. We might face some trouble and think that we can never come out of it, imagine this scenario;

A man works for a service where his job is to torture people without a just cause (probably thinks it easy money), now imagine he gets caught by another party and they start to torture him to get some information from him. – At this moment in time, he is facing a real hard time and like any human, he’s thinking why he never went home early today so he wouldn’t be caught and face this torture? – Anyway, after a few hours of torture they release him (maybe he just doesn’t have any secret info.) He goes back home and remembers all that he faced and reflects on how the people he tortured must have felt. Because he realises the severity of what he went through, he feels that he’s not doing the right thing by torturing others either – so he quits his job and doesn’t ever torture people again, rather he starts to help the police so that they can prevent this kind of evil from occurring in the future by other people.

Now looking at his scenario, if he never had faced this evil – he wouldn’t have stopped doing his evil either, rather he’d continue and there would be more harm through that. But since we’ve read the future and outcome of that evil, we see that there was a greater good which occurred through this evil that he had faced. Similarly, it is God who is the All-Knowing, and therefore He places people under similar situations so that they do submit to Him and do good – while doing so out of their own free will.

Another good scenario is this; You wake up in the morning and realise that you got up 10mins late for work, you're really frustrated that it was in your destiny that you woke up late. So you get up and leave the house, as you drive down the main road - you see that there's been an accident just a few cars ahead of you. Ask yourself - if you had woken up 10mins earlier, maybe you would be that person who had just died?

http://dawahtips.blogspot.com/2007/1...-why-does.html


In regard to people being rewarded or punished eternally in the afterlife, then the response is that the person has a choice of being obedient or disobedient in this temporary life, and since the afterlife is eternal - then by choosing the correct choice in this life - they'll be given an eternal life of whatever path of consequence they chose for their ownselves. So none will be dealt with unjustly.

[- Qatada -]

agonisticism is believing in a God?

look at the definition given on the site i mentioned the quote from, hes explained that there is a difference in definition.

in regard to your other statements, i've explained that believing in God requires faith and that we realise this - so its for muslims to know where they stand in debate - the thread is for muslims, not for debate.

[- Qatada -]

Question
If God is so perfect, why does He need us to worship Him?



Answer:

First of all, what is worship? Worship is to do an act which Allah/God loves, whether its praying to Him, helping the needy, helping society become a better place, even small factors such as feeding your family and providing for them - with the intent of pleasing Allah.

Allah/God isn’t in need of our worship, but we as His creation are in need of His worship. We see as humans today that there is a great amount of evil that is widespread on the earth, people kill each other unjustly, loot each others wealth, taking the rights of people without any just cause. Now if the people were aware, and 100% certain without doubt that God is watching over them and that He would either punish them a severe punishment or reward them a great reward according to what they did do in this world, there would be a lot less evil, and much more harmony and peace on the earth.

So God isn’t in need of us or our worship, but we clearly see that there is a great deal of corruption when people do not worship God. Having a healthy fear of Gods punishment, hoping for His reward and Mercy, and loving Him for everything He has given us (sight, hearing, health, sustenance etc.) are all acts of worship – if these were instilled into the people, it would give everyone a balanced life in all aspects.
It would humble those who have been given authority and great wealth, aswell as give respect and kindness to those who may be given less in worldly riches. The rich would give a share of their wealth to the poor, hoping for reward from God, and the poor would be thankful for that. The family ties would be upheld, people would be pleased with that because they would be sure that this is what God wants, and they would hope that God would be pleased with them for that – and this would strengthen their love for God, aswell as God’s love for them, which would mean that God would give them an easier life in this world, and the one to come. If anyone ever thought of harming someone who had no right of being harmed, they could remind them of the punishment of God against injustice, which would make that person think twice before doing that evil.

From the above we see that all the aspects of worship which God orders us to perform are for the betterment of humanity aswell as ourselves, God never orders us to do something harmful for us unless the benefit is much greater than the harm.





Okay, that makes sense, but what about praying and fasting then? Why does God need you to pray to Him 5 times a day if He isn’t in need of your worship?

We fast – specifically in the month of Ramadan – in order to learn self-restraint, even when no-one is around we learn that God is watching over us, which will prevent us from committing evil and shameful deeds whether done in public or private. This is something praiseworthy no matter what way you look at it.
About the prayers, when we pray to God 5 times a day, the main central theme of the prayer is for our own benefit. If we look at what we recite, we praise God at the beginning, and then this is when the important part comes;

All Praise is to God, Lord of the Worlds.
The Most Compassionate, Most Merciful.
Lord of the Day of Judgement.
You Alone we worship, you Alone we ask for Help.
Guide us to the straight path.
The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray.

[Qur’an - Al Fatihah Chapter 1]

Since praising Allah/God is a means of gaining His pleasure, then we praise Him and then invoke (pray to) Him after that, yet He is not in need of us praising Him since He is the self sufficient, free of all wants.
Back to the prayer, we see that the main central theme of our prayer is to actually invoke God and ask Him for our guidance, and as we finish the prayer – we continue praying for the believers. Again, this doesn’t harm or benefit God in the least, however – He loves His servants and wants us to surrender and submit to Him [literal meaning: Islam, one who submits – Muslim] out of our own freedom of choice. Then He is willing to reward us for being grateful, or punish those who were ungrateful and belied Him and His signs.

http://dawahtips.blogspot.com/2007/1...s-he-need.html

[- Qatada -]

Destiny, a quick explanation on where Muslims stand

Allah knows His creation, He knows the past, present and future. That's His perfection. We believe in this.


So we sometimes get the question - what's the point of our creation if God already knows what's going to happen to us?

We simply say that God knows, but He also sent us the Criterion between wrong and right, truth and falsehood, and He ordered us to believe and do good - He informed us of the consequences of doing bad. We don't know whether we are successful in the next life (even though Allah does know) - that's why we have to strive to do the good in order to recieve the good (i.e. reward and pleasure of Allah.) If we don't believe and do good, then we have been warned of its consequences (i.e. the punishments etc.)


We believe in all the guidance sent by Allah, so since He informs us that He knows the future, and that we need to believe in this to be successful - we accept that. Since He informs us that we have to be obedient to be successful - we accept that. If we believe and obey, That's what makes us successful, in this life and the next.

http://idawah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=722

[- Qatada -]

By chance?!


Alot of Muslims get confused because alot of atheists act all confident when you ask them how the first cell 'came to life by chance', or how the planets came into the position for living things to survive 'by chance'.

You would probably say 'it couldnt have been controlled by chance, just look how everythings working perfectly' right? And that it could only happen except if God willed it.


Now alot of atheists act all confident, but they're really fooling alot of people. Alot of people actually think that the atheist knows more than me so i wont even attempt to question them.


But the weakness of the atheist argument is this, they say "If the earth had been in the position to sustain life, then life could have only come into existence, and thats the reason why we're surviving today"


So in other words they're saying that if everything had happened by chance, thats the only way life could have become existent. [They will talk about the different forces (i.e. gravity etc) in the universe which caused the different planets to form, but this still isn't controlled by anyone [according to them] - so its still 'chance']


We say God created the earth for us, placed it in the right place, and made it in a way so humans and living things could survive within it.


The only difference between both arguments is that we require belief that God who has control and power was able to do it, whereas they have to believe in something which they don't have proof for either, but something which they have to put blind faith in, that it happened 'by chance.'


So if they attack you for having faith in God without seeing Him in this life, tell them that they have blind faith in 'chance' - and guess what? They can't see 'chance' either.


http://idawah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=588

[- Qatada -]

why are humans so much like other animals if they didn't evolve off them?


humans are created from earth, according to the evolution theory - animals also came and were produced from this earth. we say God allowed it to occur, and it happened by His will & control. He created humans the way He wanted (this is explained in the Qur'an), and since alot of explanation isn't given about how animals were formed - the issue of them evolving over time doesn't contradict Islamic teachings.



why are they and we so similar physically? because they and we were created/produced from similar materials - the (chemicals of the) earth and water.


why are their and our behaviours so similar? animals were on the planet before humans, scientific research shows this. humans lived on the planet and they also interacted with the animals during their lifetimes, they learnt survival techniques off these animals, they learnt hunting and many other world techniques by watching what animals do and progressing on that.


Those are the similarities. ^





The difference between humans and animals is that Allah/God has given humans an intellect, He has given humans the ability to understand wrong and right, to think ahead into the future, and He has given them many blessings so they have control over a great deal of His creation.

But this doesn't come for free, He has made us responsible for all that He has given us. The more we have, the more we're held responsible for. So Allah sends us guidance to give us a Criterion between right and wrong, truth and falsehood etc. We as humans have the choice to accept the guidance or reject it.


Those who accept the guidance and follow it - then they will have a life of goodness, and high morality in this life, and a greater reward in the life to come. Whereas those who reject the guidance, then they will continue following their vain desires EXACTLY like the animals, without any aid or light to guide them in their ways. So they will be equal to the animals, made from the same materials, doing the same things.. but without a beneficial purpose.

They have hearts wherewith they understand not, they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not (the truth). They are like cattle, nay even more astray; those! They are the heedless ones. [Qur'an 7:179]



Those who accepted the guidance, they learnt higher morals, rules and even worldly advances through the guidance which Allah sent to the Messengers' - messages to unite the people on where they differed. This guidance raised these people from being like lost animals, to the most honorable and helpful people to humanity and creation.

These Messengers' were sent to the people to warn them of the consequences of their actions and that they are responsible for them in the sight of God, since they have the choice of doing right and wrong, and have the concept of understanding consequences for their actions. We will return to Him who will inform us of all that we used to do, and none will be dealt with unjustly on that Day.

Those who did believed and did good, will be given good, but those who turned away and did evil - then they won't be punished except for their own evil deeds.

[aamirsaab]

Having an answer is pointless unless it can be shown to be the right answer. I could pick an answer out of thin air if you like but it doesn't have any meaning.

I don't see what there is to gain from debating issues of blind faith on a logical basis, particularly Islam vs atheism.

Whilst I agree with these points (and the large majority of your post), I feel you may have misunderstood me. Where aethiests cannot give a rather important answer to a simple question, theists actually can. Even if it is a trump card (aka the God-card) it still provides an answer to the question. The question is valid and so is the answer (debatable, yes but it is also valid) - with this in mind, is it any wonder why religion as a whole has lasted so long or why it is present in almost every corner of the earth?

Let us take my previous example;
a non religious person (maybe they are agnostic or w/e) asks: who lit the fuse of the big bang?
Theists can actually provide an answer to this. Whether or not this answer is correct is not the primary issue (as it can be debated forever), the mere fact that an answer is given to this particular question is - especially given that aethiests (guys/gals on the opposite end of the spectrum) are unable to give one.

In simpler terms it boils down to: option a) an answer or option b) no answer but further questions.

[Trumble]

Whilst I agree with these points, I feel you may have misunderstood me. Where aethiests cannot give a rather important answer to a simple question, theists actually can. Even if it is a trump card (aka the God-card) it still provides an answer to the question.

The 'atheist' answer you dismiss as a non-answer is actually just as good as the theist one. As usual, it just comes down to your starting assumptions. If you assume that God exists, then obviously "God created the universe" is a reasonable answer. If, on the other hand you do not believe God exists, and that the universe is a place where things "just happen", then "it just happened" is a perfectly reasonable answer. In fact, our current theories of physics suggest a great many things 'just happen', all we can know is the probability of an event occuring.

Let us take my previous example;
a non religious person (maybe they are agnostic or w/e) asks: who lit the fuse of the big bang?
Theists can actually provide an answer to this. Whether or not this answer is correct is not the issue (as it can be debated forever), the mere fact that an answer is given to this particular question is - especially given that aethiests (guys/gals on the opposite end of the spectrum) wouldn't be able to give one.

They can give at least two perfectly good answers.

The first one is that the Big Bang had no 'fuse' that needed lighting. You have provided nothing to show the analogy is applicable. "Who lit" is obviously begging the question.

The second is simply that the Big Bang was caused by event X, the nature of X being currently unknown. This is, of course, exactly the same as the theist answer, except that theists choose to call event X 'God'!

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

....
They can give at least two perfectly good answers.

The first one is that the Big Bang had no 'fuse' that needed lighting. You have provided nothing to show the analogy is applicable. "Who lit" is obviously begging the question.

Ah, but that's avoiding the initial question. This is what I meant about aethiests not being able to provide an answer. I accept that what you have raised is a valid point but it's not answering the initial question: ''who lit the fuse''. I also accept that I am assuming the big bang requires a fuse and that this can be (and is being) held under criticism. My point is, if this question is raised then only theists are able to give an actual answer without having to critique the question.

If the question was ''what created or started the big bang?'', then yes the aethiest point of view would be just as valid as the theists - alternative view points is fine with me.

The second is simply that the Big Bang was caused by event X, the nature of X being currently unknown. This is, of course, exactly the same as the theist answer, except that theists choose to call event X 'God'!

Which is fine but again this sort of evades the fuse bit. My point is theists can provide an answer to the question. Aethiests can only offer the ''well we don't know'' on this particular point.

Again, this is not to criticise the aethiestic view point (I respect all view points and am trying to understand as many as possible), rather just to show an example that where one group has an answer and one doesn't (if you are in an exam and the question asks: 4 times 4 = ?. you cannot write down: ''don't know''....well you can, but it's not answering the question)

p.s; if I have misunderstood your latter point, I apologise and will concede on that statement.
p.p.s; if my question contains a glaring falicy, then I shall concede this argument entirely. If I'm right, I'm right. If I'm wrong, atleast I'll learn something. :)

[Tornado]

look at the definition given on the site i mentioned the quote from, hes explained that there is a difference in definition.

in regard to your other statements, i've explained that believing in God requires faith and that we realise this - so its for muslims to know where they stand in debate - the thread is for muslims, not for debate.

I understand that, but you have to give them strong positions and not weak ones against atheist.
Also, I don't see a definition of agnosticism? If it's believing in a god, you have made it up.

I am an atheist for the same reason I am a-santa. I don't believe in Santa. Atheism is a lack of faith in a god. If you say that something exists, why should it be our responsibility to disprove your claims when you have provided zero evidence. Agnostics and atheists are pretty much the exact same, we both are agnostic in that we have no knowledge that supports either side of the god existence debate. If they use their logic, then they will have to be agnostic about every imaginary thing.

[Tornado]

Which is fine but again this sort of evades the fuse bit. My point is theists can provide an answer to the question. Aethiests can only offer the ''well we don't know'' on this particular point.

Again, this is not to criticise the aethiestic view point (I respect all view points and am trying to understand as many as possible), rather just to show an example that where one group has an answer and one doesn't (if you are in an exam and the question asks: 4 times 4 = ?. you cannot write down: ''don't know''....well you can, but it's not answering the question)

p.s; if I have misunderstood your latter point, I apologise and will concede on that statement.
p.p.s; if my question contains a glaring falicy, then I shall concede this argument entirely. If I'm right, I'm right. If I'm wrong, atleast I'll learn something. :)

:D I love attitude. I know you say you have the answer, but you have to back your answer up. I don't have an answer because I can't back it up.

[Trumble]

:sl:

My point is, if this question is raised then only theists are able to give an actual answer without having to critique the question.

I don't think my initial response was a critique of the question. Consider, I ask you if you own a red car or a blue car - would you be criticizing the question or merely answering it if you replied "I don't own a car"? Surely the latter?

Referring to the "who" part as begging the question was a critique, but that is a fallacy whenever it occurs. As the question itself (to all intents and purposes) assumes there is a God it is impossible for an atheist to answer it not just because they don't have an answer but because the question is such they logically can't have one. If they accept the assumption necessary to provide one, they would no longer be atheists!

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

I love attitude. I know you say you have the answer, but you have to back your answer up. I don't have an answer because I can't back it up.

lol. I do admit to using a trump card in this argument (aka the God card) and for the reasons that will be mentioned further on in this post, I'll concede.

I don't think my initial response was a critique of the question. Consider, I ask you if you own a red car or a blue car - would you be criticizing the question or merely answering it if you replied "I don't own a car"? Surely the latter?

While I think that this is an unfair comparison to my original question, I will accept it and take heed from it. Mainly because..

Referring to the "who" part as begging the question was a critique, but that is a fallacy whenever it occurs. As the question itself (to all intents and purposes) assumes there is a God it is impossible for an atheist to answer it not just because they don't have an answer but because the question is such they logically can't have one. If they accept the assumption necessary to provide one, they would no longer be atheists!

That's what was troubling me at the end of my last post - I just wasn't completely sure if it was a fallacy or not. In which case, I concede this argument.

Thank you for the discussion, Azy, tornado and trumble. :)

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Qatada

If Muslims, Christians, Hindu and Jews could agree on God; then we might convince our atheist friends.

If we could have greater interfaith friendship, we might convince our atheist friends

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth,

Eric

[Azy]

In which case, I concede this argument.

Bro, that's just cruel, I was hoping we could at least drag this out over a couple of afternoons as it's been very quiet here lately :s

Eric, it' a nice sentiment but I can't realistically see it happening in the near future.

[aamirsaab]

Bro, that's just cruel, I was hoping we could at least drag this out over a couple of afternoons as it's been very quiet here lately :s
..

Lol, don't worry, I have something special planned for all of you guys very soon. I don't want to spoil it and nor do I want to derail this thread for any longer. Hopefully, by the end of the week my suprise (much better than the last one I gave!) will be up - just need to iron out any creases in it.

[Skavau]

(Atheists don't know what caused the universe to begin, and anything they say is not based on evidence but based on personal opinions only. Because they do not know what was 'before' the universe or big bang, and they have no solid proof for their opinions.)

Atheists indeed do not know the state of affairs of existence prior to the Big Bang. It is a travesty of truth that so many Muslims and Christians alike persist in the delusion that mainstream science accepts that there was absolutely nothing prior to the formation of this universe. It is just not true. It is a long accepted axiom of science that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We have great reason to believe that indeed, something did exist prior to the Big Bang (ex nihilo, nihil fit being a key reason). It may be an answer indeed to assume that God prompted the Big Bang - but such an answer is without any evidence whatsoever.

They will say that the starting point of the debate is that there is no God, so you have to prove that there is one in order to convince them.

But this isn't true at all:

Some will even claim atheism isn't even a paradigm but the default starting position. They are obviously wrong, Agnosticism (believing in a God) is the default starting position. Atheism is negatively biased towards the existence of God whereas theism (relligion) is positively biased.

The difference is, at least the theists acknowledges that their view is a belief.

Absolute nonsense. You clearly need a quick lesson on burden of proof. It is upon the individual who makes the claim that has to back it up. It is a fundamentally irrational position to state that God exists and then demand that Atheists then disprove it. It is your duty to back up your own claims. Let me demonstrate this with a more logical assumption.

Your argument appears to be that because belief in God is a 'positive' assertion, the 'negative' assertion or "bias" must be demonstrated to be true. You have provided absolutely no reason for anyone to believe this whatsoever. It is well-known in philosophy that it is impossible to disprove a negative. You cannot disprove anything. Can you disprove the existence of Thor? No. You know there is no evidence for the existence of Thor, and therefore no reason to believe in the existence of Thor - but ultimately you cannot demonstrate that Thor does not exist. This is identical to the atheistic position - just swap 'Thor' with 'God'. So it is ultimately upon the claimant to demonstrate the validity of his or her own position.

Moreover, agnosticism does not mean "believing in a God". I suggest you look up its actual definition.

If they ask who created God - tell them we take Allah as a God because He is uncreated. If he was created He would not be God, and therefore we would not take him as God. This is our belief, and it is a much more convincing belief than doubt (of the atheists) who have no answer.

Not at all. It is a belief indeed, but it is not a 'convincing belief'. There is absolutely no evidence for it. It is simply an assertion and on equal merit with claiming that Thor created the universe and is uncreated.

Because we cannot see God, it doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. 'Absence of proof is not proof of absence' - as the debate argument goes. There can be someone behind a door and although you can't see him, it isn't proof that he isn't there.

The irony of you using 'absence of proof is not proof of absence' whilst earlier committing the fallacy twice is quite amusing. The fact that there is no evidence whatsoever regarding God's existence is good reason to suspect that there is no decent reason presume that God exists.

Similarly, we see the universe around us, and how it is sustained and controlled for so long - & we believe that this is the product of an All Powerful, Knowing and Wise Creator. This is our belief.

It might be your belief. But stating it as a belief is not a convincing argument, especially for an atheist.

Allah tests us and sends guidance to us -Will we obey Him (by doing good and abstaining from evil) without seeing Him? This is part of our test. If Allah was clearly watching us, while we watched Him - then none of us would even feel inclined to sin out of awe and fear for Him.

Okay.

So Allah tests us to see if we will obey him. That's fair enough. However, what isn't fair enough is that Allah's insistence and apparent expectation for us all to follow him. It is well known by the fact that most of the world is not Muslim, that Islam is not in fact very convincing for most people. Allah should be aware of the philosophical, scientific and ethical reasons that many people have for not being a Muslim. He should be aware that people will contest the claims presented in Islam and should be aware that many people will take intellectual opposition to Islam.

First of all, what is worship? Worship is to do an act which Allah/God loves, whether its praying to Him, helping the needy, helping society become a better place, even small factors such as feeding your family and providing for them - with the intent of pleasing Allah.

Why does the intent have to be to please Allah?

a non religious person (maybe they are agnostic or w/e) asks: who lit the fuse of the big bang?
Theists can actually provide an answer to this. Whether or not this answer is correct is not the primary issue (as it can be debated forever), the mere fact that an answer is given to this particular question is - especially given that aethiests (guys/gals on the opposite end of the spectrum) are unable to give one.

In simpler terms it boils down to: option a) an answer or option b) no answer but further questions.

If the questions spark further debate and further interest into actually finding it out through the scientific method then they are infinitely more valuable than a non-answer with no evidence.

And why do you spell 'Atheists' as 'Aethiests'?

[Skavau]

By chance?!


Alot of Muslims get confused because alot of atheists act all confident when you ask them how the first cell 'came to life by chance', or how the planets came into the position for living things to survive 'by chance'.

You would probably say 'it couldnt have been controlled by chance, just look how everythings working perfectly' right? And that it could only happen except if God willed it.


Now alot of atheists act all confident, but they're really fooling alot of people. Alot of people actually think that the atheist knows more than me so i wont even attempt to question them.


But the weakness of the atheist argument is this, they say "If the earth had been in the position to sustain life, then life could have only come into existence, and thats the reason why we're surviving today"


So in other words they're saying that if everything had happened by chance, thats the only way life could have become existent. [They will talk about the different forces (i.e. gravity etc) in the universe which caused the different planets to form, but this still isn't controlled by anyone [according to them] - so its still 'chance']


We say God created the earth for us, placed it in the right place, and made it in a way so humans and living things could survive within it.


The only difference between both arguments is that we require belief that God who has control and power was able to do it, whereas they have to believe in something which they don't have proof for either, but something which they have to put blind faith in, that it happened 'by chance.'


So if they attack you for having faith in God without seeing Him in this life, tell them that they have blind faith in 'chance' - and guess what? They can't see 'chance' either.


http://idawah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=588

Massive strawman.

Very few atheists contend that everything came to be by 'chance'.

[MSalman]

^look how you have contradicted yourself. How is it a strawman if some people accept it? The argument may not apply to everyone but it still hold for people who holds the "by chance" position; thus, it isn't a strawman.

[MSalman]

Atheists indeed do not know the state of affairs of existence prior to the Big Bang ... It may be an answer indeed to assume that God prompted the Big Bang - but such an answer is without any evidence whatsoever.

rationally speaking, there are only two possibilities: 1) we have been around forever 2) someone who have been around forever created us. From this we deduce that the Eternal is God! You may refer to this for complete argument: Where did we come from? (Does Allah (God) Exist?)

As far concerning why God, you may refer to this: Why Allah? Why not flying spaghetti monster or invisible flying pink unicorn? (Answering hard questions of Atheists)

So Allah tests us to see if we will obey him. That's fair enough. However, what isn't fair enough is that Allah's insistence and apparent expectation for us all to follow him. It is well known by the fact that most of the world is not Muslim, that Islam is not in fact very convincing for most people. Allah should be aware of the philosophical, scientific and ethical reasons that many people have for not being a Muslim. He should be aware that people will contest the claims presented in Islam and should be aware that many people will take intellectual opposition to Islam.

He told you what you need to do and it is up to you to decide. So you're blaming Him for giving you the freedom of choice and questioning? How is this inconsistent? How is it Allah Ta'ala's fault for the choices you make?

Why does the intent have to be to please Allah?

What do you suggest we should do then? Can you let the children in school do whatever they want?

And why do you spell 'Atheists' as 'Aethiests'?

It maybe a spelling mistake; are you offended?

[Trumble]

^look how you have contradicted yourself. How is it a strawman if some people accept it? The argument may not apply to everyone but it still hold for people who holds the "by chance" position; thus, it isn't a strawman.

You could introduce just about any vaguely coherent claim into an argument and somebody, somewhere might hold that position. Such a claim remains a strawman, to be otherwise it needs to important, if not essential, to your opponent's argument.

[MSalman]

You could introduce just about any vaguely coherent claim into an argument and somebody, somewhere might hold that position. Such a claim remains a strawman, to be otherwise it needs to important, if not essential, to your opponent's argument.

it is not vague since it is not like one or two individuals hold part of the argument. There are bulk of people who hold that view.

[Skavau]

^look how you have contradicted yourself. How is it a strawman if some people accept it? The argument may not apply to everyone but it still hold for people who holds the "by chance" position; thus, it isn't a strawman.

Again, I know of no-one that believes the universe is governed by random chance or came by random chance. It is a strawman.

rationally speaking, there are only two possibilities: 1) we have been around forever 2) someone who have been around forever created us. From this we deduce that the Eternal is God! You may refer to this for complete argument: Where did we come from? (Does Allah (God) Exist?)

Why must what is eternal be of God?

[Skavau]

He told you what you need to do and it is up to you to decide. So you're blaming Him for giving you the freedom of choice and questioning? How is this inconsistent? How is it Allah Ta'ala's fault for the choices you make?

I never said it was Allah's fault (well, it could be argued it is - but that is another debate altogether) - I said that Allah cannot expect everyone to be a Muslim when he has provided credence for so much opposition towards Islam. As I have said, many millions of people disbelieve in Islam for scientific, ethical and philosophical reasons. Simply reading the Qu'ran is not on its own, satisfactory for many people. The complaints that these people have (such as myself) are actual roadblocks preventing people from accepting Islam until they are rationally answered.

And, no belief is not a choice. It is a conclusion.

What do you suggest we should do then? Can you let the children in school do whatever they want?

Why for something to be worthwhile, does it have to involve pleasing Allah?

Why is it necessary for us to please Allah?

It maybe a spelling mistake; are you offended?

Not at all.

[MSalman]

Again, I know of no-one that believes the universe is governed by random chance or came by random chance. It is a strawman.

you said very few atheists hold that view so i was taking your words and pointing out the problem with your argument. I care less whether atheists hold that view or not.

Why must what is eternal be of God?

I explained it in the link I posted before; here it is again Why Allah?

I never said it was Allah's fault (well, it could be argued it is - but that is another debate altogether) - I said that Allah cannot expect everyone to be a Muslim when he has provided credence for so much opposition towards Islam. As I have said, many millions of people disbelieve in Islam for scientific, ethical and philosophical reasons. Simply reading the Qu'ran is not on its own, satisfactory for many people. The complaints that these people have (such as myself) are actual roadblocks preventing people from accepting Islam until they are rationally answered.

He already knows that not everyone will accept His message because He is our Creator. However, this doesn't mean it is His fault because He told us what we suppose to do and gave us the freedom to choose whatever we want. So now, you can only argue that despite the fact He knew what we are going to do, why did He give us freedom to choose whatever we want for ourselves.

And, no belief is not a choice. It is a conclusion.

we make a choice when we reach a certain conclusion. Or do you think we just randomly make choices?

Why for something to be worthwhile, does it have to involve pleasing Allah?

Why is it necessary for us to please Allah?

because it is for yourself. When kids go to school, there is a purpose behind it; it does not matter to the teachers whether they study or not. It is beneficial for the kids. Similarly, whether you obey Allah Ta'ala or not, it is for yourself.

One another way to look at this is that you were nothing before; He gave you this life so appreciate His Kindness and Mercy.

[Skavau]

you said very few atheists hold that view so i was taking your words and pointing out the problem with your argument. I care less whether atheists hold that view or not.

We don't.

Most Atheists accept natural law. Therefore criticism of that would be a far more prudent option than going on a journey dismantling a hypothetical and minority belief that everything happens through chance, or the universe came to be through chance.

I explained it in the link I posted before; here it is again

Let us look at this link you provided.

Why Allah? Why not flying spaghetti monster or invisible flying pink unicorns?

What we have here is difference in naming the Eternal, we call him Allah because it is one of His unique attributes-as it roughly means only one. We know Him by His attributes and we call/name Him by His attributes. You can call Him the Eternal or the Most Beneficent, the Creator etc. Allah Ta'ala tells us that all good names belong to Him. Therefore, we should call Him by something which illustrates one of His unique attributes, not some mambo jambo. Let us read following passage from the Qur'an, which clearly tells us some of His attributes.

This is mere assertion that Allah is eternal. It does not actually demonstrate that scientifically, only Allah can be eternal, or that logically only Allah can be eternal.

He already knows that not everyone will accept His message because He is our Creator. However, this doesn't mean it is His fault because He told us what we suppose to do and gave us the freedom to choose whatever we want.

Sure (Although, again - the idea that we do have free choice under the presumption of the Islamic world view is indeed a debatable assertion). I was just pointing out that people do have valid reasons for disbelieving in and/or rejecting Islam.

we make a choice when we reach a certain conclusion.

Uh, no. Our conclusions and beliefs are decided through specific experiences of natural phenomena and specific knowledge obtained. There is a reason that you are a Muslim and I am an Atheist. It is not through choice, but conclusion. You have made choices in your life, and had access to knowledge in your life that has led you to conclude that Islam is true and should be believed in. You cannot merely 'change' this belief. You cannot just 'become' a Christian because you honestly (I would assume) do not believe in Christianity. You would have to be convinced that Christianity is true before changing your belief.

The same is with me regarding Atheism. I have to be convinced that Islam is true before becoming a Muslim.

Or do you think we just randomly make choices?

Not at all.

because it is for yourself. When kids go to school, there is a purpose behind it; it does not matter to the teachers whether they study or not. It is beneficial for the kids. Similarly, whether you obey Allah Ta'ala or not, it is for yourself

Why is praising Allah beneficial?

One another way to look at this is that you were nothing before; He gave you this life so appreciate His Kindness and Mercy.

But that was Allah's choice. He knew that not all of his creation would be grateful and why does being grateful involve complete and total submission for the rest of your life?

[MSalman]

We don't.

Most Atheists accept natural law. Therefore criticism of that would be a far more prudent option than going on a journey dismantling a hypothetical and minority belief that everything happens through chance, or the universe came to be through chance.

fair enough; i do know that atheists do not hold this view as i have met none but as i mentioned before i was only pointing out, as you mentioned only minority holds the view, that it doesn't nullify theists' argument or make it straw man...that's all. If you people don't hold that view, then it is a new lesson for everyone.

Let us look at this link you provided.

This is mere assertion that Allah is eternal. It does not actually demonstrate that scientifically, only Allah can be eternal, or that logically only Allah can be eternal.

it answers why we call the Eternal Allah, as you asked. If you call Him by another name, that is simply a difference in naming Him; however, all good names belong to Him so we should call Him by good names. so, who do you think the eternal is? Matter?

Sure (Although, again - the idea that we do have free choice under the presumption of the Islamic world view is indeed a debatable assertion). I was just pointing out that people do have valid reasons for disbelieving in and/or rejecting Islam.

no one disagrees with you on this one but people have the tendency to say or believe as if it is His fault.

Uh, no. Our conclusions and beliefs are decided through specific experiences of natural phenomena and specific knowledge obtained. There is a reason that you are a Muslim and I am an Atheist. It is not through choice, but conclusion. You have made choices in your life, and had access to knowledge in your life that has led you to conclude that Islam is true and should be believed in. You cannot merely 'change' this belief. You cannot just 'become' a Christian because you honestly (I would assume) do not believe in Christianity. You would have to be convinced that Christianity is true before changing your belief.

I think we both hold the same view but simply different words to present it.

The same is with me regarding Atheism. I have to be convinced that Islam is true before becoming a Muslim.

what if present to you my arguments, which I believe are evident to prove the existence of Allah Ta'ala? Would you then believe in Him?

Why is praising Allah beneficial?

i can go in details but let's omit the part of this world. It is beneficial because after you die, you will be close to Him and get everything possible you can imagine.

But that was Allah's choice. He knew that not all of his creation would be grateful and why does being grateful involve complete and total submission for the rest of your life?

this is something He has given to you, it isn't yours. He created you when you were nothing without asking you (since you didn't exist before) and then He told you to obey Him if you want to remain close to Him. You have no problem with your existence and all the other bounties He has given to you but you have problem with your ultimate purpose.

[Skavau]

fair enough; i do know that atheists do not hold this view as i have met none but as i mentioned before i was only pointing out, as you mentioned only minority holds the view, that it doesn't nullify theists' argument or make it straw man...that's all. If you people don't hold that view, then it is a new lesson for everyone.

Okay.

it answers why we call the Eternal Allah, as you asked.

I asked: "Why must what is eternal be of God?"

What I meant is why is it only rational to consider God eternal, and not the universe?

If you call Him by another name, that is simply a difference in naming Him; however, all good names belong to Him so we should call Him by good names. so, who do you think the eternal is? Matter?

The sum total of existence. Something cannot come from nothing. There must always have been 'something'.

I think we both hold the same view but simply different words to present it.

Can you please elaborate?

what if present to you my arguments, which I believe are evident to prove the existence of Allah Ta'ala? Would you then believe in Him?

Well, what you believe to be evidence of God is not necessarily evidence to me. But inevitably, if I was convinced that your arguments for Allah were actually true and indicates that Allah does indeed exist, then I would have no choice but to believe in Islam.

Keep in mind though, that even if hypothetically you were to demonstrate the existence of Allah - moral questions from me would then surface.

i can go in details but let's omit the part of this world. It is beneficial because after you die, you will be close to Him and get everything possible you can imagine.

But why should worshiping or doing things for Allah have anything to do with that?

this is something He has given to you, it isn't yours. He created you when you were nothing without asking you (since you didn't exist before) and then He told you to obey Him if you want to remain close to Him.

But ultimately, this is all Allah's choice. He decided to do this.

You have no problem with your existence and all the other bounties He has given to you but you have problem with your ultimate purpose.

And what should my ultimate purpose be? Am I created to live or to serve?

[MSalman]

^I'll respond later in details but I look forward to a decent discussion between two of us and hopefully, i won't be disappointed.

[MSalman]

What I meant is why is it only rational to consider God eternal, and not the universe?

universe isn't eternal as it is well known. This can be proven by science and philosophy.

The sum total of existence. Something cannot come from nothing. There must always have been 'something'.

that's what everyone believes in; the only problem arises when we go into the questions who is this Eternal and its attributes etc.

Can you please elaborate?

I think I meant that we both have similar thoughts about the definition of conclusion etc. It was off-topic anyway, so let's leave it there.

But why should worshiping or doing things for Allah have anything to do with that?

lol, because He is the One who will grant you all that.

But ultimately, this is all Allah's choice. He decided to do this.

yes, no one is denying it but my point is that it shows His mercy.

Am I created to live or to serve?

both; live by pleasing Him for your own sake.

as far the other arguments, I'll write a detail response later; just came from giving a final exam so I'm going to sleep for a while, need some rest.

[Skavau]

universe isn't eternal as it is well known. This can be proven by science and philosophy.

The universe is not "well known" to not be eternal. Science can only demonstrate the origin of this universe by asserting the Big Bang. Philosophy is completely silent on the origins of the universe, but if Philosophy was to make any comment on the universe - it could indeed conclude that the universe could be infinite.

that's what everyone believes in; the only problem arises when we go into the questions who is this Eternal and its attributes etc.

You contend that this 'eternal' being is God.

I contend that it is merely the sum total of all existence.

I think I meant that we both have similar thoughts about the definition of conclusion etc. It was off-topic anyway, so let's leave it there.

Okay.

lol, because He is the One who will grant you all that.

But it doesn't need to be like that. Why should worshiping be a prerequisite for reward in this instance? Why does God consider worship towards him of primary importance, than say good deeds done out of benevolence?

yes, no one is denying it but my point is that it shows His mercy.

By creating us, we are shown mercy?

both; live by pleasing Him for your own sake.

I don't see the need. If Islam is true, God does not need anything from me. I do not see why I should have to negate my entire life to what God decrees. I do not see why I should have to conform my lifestyle to suit God's demands. It is a strange concept to me to believe that a God created a world of people who have the capacity to create their own lives, to believe what they like and advance how they like - and then demand that it all must conform to a specific standard.

[Sami234]

Atheists indeed do not know the state of affairs of existence prior to the Big Bang. It is a travesty of truth that so many Muslims and Christians alike persist in the delusion that mainstream science accepts that there was absolutely nothing prior to the formation of this universe. It is just not true. It is a long accepted axiom of science that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We have great reason to believe that indeed, something did exist prior to the Big Bang (ex nihilo, nihil fit being a key reason). It may be an answer indeed to assume that God prompted the Big Bang - but such an answer is without any evidence whatsoever.

Well, we don't know anything from the


Absolute nonsense. You clearly need a quick lesson on burden of proof. It is upon the individual who makes the claim that has to back it up. It is a fundamentally irrational position to state that God exists and then demand that Atheists then disprove it. It is your duty to back up your own claims. Let me demonstrate this with a more logical assumption.

Your argument appears to be that because belief in God is a 'positive' assertion, the 'negative' assertion or "bias" must be demonstrated to be true. You have provided absolutely no reason for anyone to believe this whatsoever. It is well-known in philosophy that it is impossible to disprove a negative. You cannot disprove anything. Can you disprove the existence of Thor? No. You know there is no evidence for the existence of Thor, and therefore no reason to believe in the existence of Thor - but ultimately you cannot demonstrate that Thor does not exist. This is identical to the atheistic position - just swap 'Thor' with 'God'. So it is ultimately upon the claimant to demonstrate the validity of his or her own position.
[/quote]

Yeah, but the comparison between God and Thor is an absolute non-sense.

Thor is a invention. Even people worshipping Thor would say that Thor is an invention. Same for Zeus and the flying Spaghetti.

Not at all. It is a belief indeed, but it is not a 'convincing belief'. There is absolutely no evidence for it. It is simply an assertion and on equal merit with claiming that Thor created the universe and is uncreated.

Nope. Nothing to do with Thor.

It is a stupid comparison. Some people just don't understand the existence of the world without God. But everyone understand the world without a magic viking named Thor.

I don't have a proof. But I have a lot of signs. No signs for Thor. The main problem with Atheists is that they thing that we are all in a total delusion, convincing ourselves for absolutely no reason that there is a God while Atheist understood everything about the world.

We are not convincing ourselves of the existence of God for nothing. You know that or you think that only atheist understand the reality?

The fact that there is no evidence whatsoever regarding God's existence is good reason to suspect that there is no decent reason presume that God exists.

I could just say that there is a lot of reason to suspect his existence, but you just don't see it. What about that? Im serious. I really thing there is a lot of reasons to believe in him.

I know that for you there is none. Fine. But for me, there is a lot. So please, stop saying that we are all convincing ourselves for absolutely nothing that God exist.

It might be your belief. But stating it as a belief is not a convincing argument, especially for an atheist.

Okay.

So Allah tests us to see if we will obey him. That's fair enough. However, what isn't fair enough is that Allah's insistence and apparent expectation for us all to follow him. It is well known by the fact that most of the world is not Muslim, that Islam is not in fact very convincing for most people. Allah should be aware of the philosophical, scientific and ethical reasons that many people have for not being a Muslim. He should be aware that people will contest the claims presented in Islam and should be aware that many people will take intellectual opposition to Islam.

I always thougth that lot of people are not Muslims just because they actually don't understand Islam. You are an excellent example of that.

The same way, science is not convincing for people who don't know what is science.

As for ethical and philosophical reasons claimed, they can be resumed in only a single sentence :

They just don't want to submit to God and admit that they are not able to understand everything.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

...So Allah tests us to see if we will obey him. That's fair enough. However, what isn't fair enough is that Allah's insistence and apparent expectation for us all to follow him. It is well known by the fact that most of the world is not Muslim, that Islam is not in fact very convincing for most people. Allah should be aware of the philosophical, scientific and ethical reasons that many people have for not being a Muslim. He should be aware that people will contest the claims presented in Islam and should be aware that many people will take intellectual opposition to Islam.

Would you (or anyone here) like to converse about the logic/intelligence/ethics of the islamic teachings? I'd be more than happy to - you bring to the table one islamic teaching that you think lacks logic/intelligence/ethics and I'll prove that it does :)

[Skavau]

Well, we don't know anything from the

?

We don't know anything from the what?

Yeah, but the comparison between God and Thor is an absolute non-sense.

Thor is a invention. Even people worshipping Thor would say that Thor is an invention. Same for Zeus and the flying Spaghetti.

Not at all.

Both Thor and God share a single thing in common. They have an identical amount of evidence supporting their existence. Yet some people are happy to consider God rational, but not Thor.

Moreover, I would say that God is an invention.

Nope. Nothing to do with Thor.

It is a stupid comparison. Some people just don't understand the existence of the world without God. But everyone understand the world without a magic viking named Thor.

But equally, some people do understand the existence of the world without God. This is what so many Theists do not seem to grasp.

Moreover, the claim that God created the universe is by virtue of lack of evidence on the exact same level as the claim that Thor created the universe.

I don't have a proof. But I have a lot of signs. No signs for Thor.

But I could say that is just your subjective understanding. I could just say that you are missing the point, or not understanding the signs of Thor. It would be convenient, and condescending - but it is identical to Muslims claiming that I don't understand, or cannot grasp the signs.

Moreover, for me - I see no signs of Allah.

The main problem with Atheists is that they thing that we are all in a total delusion, convincing ourselves for absolutely no reason that there is a God while Atheist understood everything about the world.

No I don't.

I know many theists that I would not call delusional.

We are not convincing ourselves of the existence of God for nothing. You know that or you think that only atheist understand the reality?

Not at all.

I could just say that there is a lot of reason to suspect his existence, but you just don't see it. What about that?

You could. I could just with equal veracity retort that you don't understand reality and that what you think are 'signs' are actually not signs. What about that?

Either assertion from me or you asserting that the other just "doesn't see it" would be a major childish cop-out. This is debate or discussion, not petulance. It is the equivalent to someone simply saying you "don't understand" when they explain something to you. It is condescension, nothing more. It does not constitute a convincing argument.

Im serious. I really thing there is a lot of reasons to believe in him.

I am sure that you believe this.

I know that for you there is none. Fine. But for me, there is a lot. So please, stop saying that we are all convincing ourselves for absolutely nothing that God exist.

I never said that in the first place.

I always thougth that lot of people are not Muslims just because they actually don't understand Islam. You are an excellent example of that.

Irrelevant.

Whether or not I understand the intricacies or even the basics of Islam has no bearing on my position here. The claim that Islam is completely understandable and one-hundred percent coherent to every human being requires that every human being who invests their time into Islam comes out a Muslim and remains a Muslim.

We know that this is not true. We know that people have problems with Islam, be they philosophical, ethical or scientific. You can claim they 'don't understand' but it doesn't get rid of the fact that just under 80% of the world think like that.

As for ethical and philosophical reasons claimed, they can be resumed in only a single sentence :

They just don't want to submit to God and admit that they are not able to understand everything.

Do not presume what people do and do not believe.

I have both ethical and philosophical issues with Islam and it is nothing to do with your assertion below.

[MSalman]

replying after long time...

The universe is not "well known" to not be eternal. Science can only demonstrate the origin of this universe by asserting the Big Bang. Philosophy is completely silent on the origins of the universe, but if Philosophy was to make any comment on the universe - it could indeed conclude that the universe could be infinite.

As you said scientifically (using Big bang), it is proven that Universe indeed had beginning. As far concerning philosophy, to say that universe has existed from infinity is to say that we would have never got here as it would have taken us infinite time to get here. However, we're here, it means..

I contend that it is merely the sum total of all existence.

all the existence which makes the sum have to exist from eternity but this is not true i.e humans

But it doesn't need to be like that. Why should worshiping be a prerequisite for reward in this instance? Why does God consider worship towards him of primary importance, than say good deeds done out of benevolence?

how do you expect to get a reward in return without actually doing anything? This is like me saying: why do i've to work to get money? You see the absurdity in the question!

By creating us, we are shown mercy?

yes, because you were nothing before and not only He created you but also gave you everything to survie and enjoy your existence.

I don't see the need. If Islam is true, God does not need anything from me. I do not see why I should have to negate my entire life to what God decrees. I do not see why I should have to conform my lifestyle to suit God's demands. It is a strange concept to me to believe that a God created a world of people who have the capacity to create their own lives, to believe what they like and advance how they like - and then demand that it all must conform to a specific standard.

Again, like I said before, all Praise to be Allah Ta'ala, He is no need of what you do. It's for your own sake. If you want eternal happiness, joy and much more then you work hard for it but if you don't that's your choice. Whatever humans have isn't something they acqired on their own. They didn't existe before and nor they created themselves.

[Thinker]

:sl:

Would you (or anyone here) like to converse about the logic/intelligence/ethics of the islamic teachings? I'd be more than happy to - you bring to the table one islamic teaching that you think lacks logic/intelligence/ethics and I'll prove that it does :)

I’d like to know the ‘logic, intelligence and ethics’ of the Islamic teaching that says you will go to hell if you take a photograph of someone (or have I misunderstood)?


See . . . [url]http://www.islamicboard.com/advice-support/134271874-drawing-painting-seperate-body-parts.html[url]

[MSalman]

I’d like to know the ‘logic, intelligence and ethics’ of the Islamic teaching that says you will go to hell if you take a photograph of someone (or have I misunderstood)?


See . . . [url]http://www.islamicboard.com/advice-support/134271874-drawing-painting-seperate-body-parts.html[url]

let's talk about this in that thread

[THE END]

replying after long time...

As you said scientifically (using Big bang), it is proven that Universe indeed had beginning. As far concerning philosophy, to say that universe has existed from infinity is to say that we would have never got here as it would have taken us infinite time to get here. However, we're here, it means..

all the existence which makes the sum have to exist from eternity but this is not true i.e humans

.

:thumbs_up:thumbs_up

to claim that an eternal amount of events had to be concluded before our
existence, then your saying that eternity came to an end as we exists here today, which is a contradiction in terms.

It is like if someone said

“this car will only get to its destination after its wheels have spun infinitely many times,” and then claimed that the car arrived at its destination.


It is clear that the car could never have gotten to its destination
if an infinite number of spins was the condition for its arrival.