Logical proof for the existence of holy god.

[Justufy]

When we look at the greatness and perfection of nature it seems that all has been created with intended purpose, gravitational laws, physic laws, natural laws, this goes for all natural bodies present in our universe.

However natural bodies are unintelligent, they are incapable of deciding of these laws by themselves, however they all act towards a defined end, for example, a planet will orbit around the sun.

The complex array of cells of the human body all have specific functions, acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.

Now that this has been said it is obvious that there exists an intelligent being that guides all that exists and dictates these laws.

And this all men know as God.

[IAmZamzam]

Using the word "perfection" like that is just begging for trouble. It's an easy hook to latch onto and argue against, allowing one an excuse to miss the main point. Indeed, the the pure vagueness and subjectivity of the word is fodder for many of the atheists' own shoddy arguments against God's existence, such as the "perfection vs. creation" nonsense. I don't seek to offend; I'm just warning you.

Let me try my hand at this; here's something (admittedly a very heavily edited version of a quite excerpted portion from an extremely rough draft of a work in progress--I hope the ellipses don't make it too choppy) from the book on Islam I'm writing:

Consider what [“the forces of nature”] do to the world. They give it mechanism, organization, structure, intricacy, and what is generally seen as beauty. In other words, all their operationally defining characteristics are the marks of design. Think of a Rubix Cube. It may not be easy to solve the puzzle of precisely how the whole thing works but you can still observe with much ease that it is a designed thing. Its main characteristics are mechanism, organization, structure, intricacy, and (color-based) aesthetics. Would a Rubix Cube have simply happened to come to be somehow if no intelligent being had made it? So it is with the world, as far as we can observe. Do its laws or “forces” not provide it with a great degree of organization and structure by their mere existence? Is the world not intricate? Everyone knows it is, even the infant who has got a single glimpse out of the nursery room window. Are not many things in the way the world works—the hydrological cycle, for example—not mechanism of a sort? Is there not what most would agree is beauty in the world’s rich, lush verdure, gorgeous mountains, dazzling rivers and cataracts, and wondrous colorful caves? There might not be much meaning to any of these characteristics if they were alone (I have found that many people posing teleological theistic arguments make too singular a focus on intricacy) but they all coexist…

Think of the arts—any of them. A painter makes a painting with the use of the three primary colors (blue, yellow, and red), using and combining them in different ways to make his intricate, organized, aesthetic work of design. An author uses the three types of sentences (statements, questions, and commands) to do the same thing when constructing a story. So it is with a composer of music using the three building blocks and shaping tools for the music (rhythm, melody, and lyrics), or an architect with his ceilings, walls and floors. So it is with gravity, the strong nuclear force, and the electro-weak force. They combine with each other in different patterns to produce the world with the same characteristics. Experience teaches us that they could not were there not an Artist behind them…

I hear…all the time from atheists…the appeal to natural selection, an example of the self-negating idea of order from chaos, used as evidence against the notion of the world having been designed. Of what use is this argument when one could at least as easily use it as evidence of the opposite position? To start with the premise that natural selection happens because of impersonal or random things instead of being part of an ultimate purpose, and then use that premise on which to build an argument against the existence of that ultimate purpose, is to form yet one more bit of atheistic circular reasoning…

The agnostic philosopher Bertrand Russell raised objections of his own the better part of a century ago and they are still paralleled or parroted by nontheists everywhere. These objections come from Russell’s famous essay “Why I Am Not a Christian”, in which he spends much less time on the subject of Christianity than the principal subject of God’s existence. He said on the subject of the world’s design by natural law, “Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced...You no longer have the sort of Natural Law that you had in the Newtonian system, where, for some reason that nobody could understand, nature behaved in a uniform fashion…Where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find that they are much less subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance. There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design. The laws of nature are of that sort as regards to a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes the whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was.”

Do you see what Russell’s doing here, dear reader? He’s trying to explain one kind of law (the laws of physics) by appealing to another kind of law (the laws of mathematics). That just brings us back to square one. It’s yet more nontheistic circular reasoning at worst and utter futility at best. The material world itself offers no more actual explanation for the existence of the mathematical laws (or rather the realities they’re describing) than it does for the physical ones. I would respond to Russell with his own words from the same essay:

“It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu’s view, that the world rested upon an elephant, and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, ‘How about the tortoise?’ the Indian said, ‘Suppose we change the subject.’ The argument is really no better than that.”

On the subject of design by law Russell continues, “You are then faced with the question, Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others? If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted.”…If God exists then by He is a supernatural Being, which means that He is not a part of nature but beyond it. Natural law, by definition, applies to nature. So of course the train of natural law ends before God: how could it not when it’s only natural law? Were God to be subject to any sort of law, it would be a supernatural law, not a natural one, and we have no reason to believe there is any supernatural equivalent to natural law.

But by far the weakest argument Russell makes is: “If you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is merely a flash in the pan; it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions and temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending—something dead, cold, and lifeless.” Will a Rubix Cube last forever? Do paintings not peel, fade, decay? Does the paper on which literature, scripts and poetry are written not peel, fade, decay? Do great works of architecture not eventually fall apart? Do the sounds produced by the instruments of a band not dwindle into silence? Come now! Whether or not something is designed has nothing whatsoever to do with its transience…

In his essay “A Designer Universe?” [Scott] Weinberg admits, “I’d guess that if we were to see the hand of the designer anywhere, it would be in the fundamental principles, the final laws of nature, the book of rules that govern all natural phenomena.” But then he adds: “We don’t know the final laws yet, but as far as we have been able to see, they are utterly impersonal and quite without any special role for life.” Without any special role for life? What, then, do you call the laws making this planet form into the only one of its kind within interminable and uncrossable gulfs, if not altogether anywhere? What do you call the laws which keep this planet spinning in orbit in just the rate we need upon it if we are to remain on it and be graced by cool winds without which our weather would fall apart? Or keeping the earth in an orbit rather than allowing it to drift too close to the sun? What do you call the laws causing living things to grow and thrive? No special role for life indeed! Here’s an exercise, dear reader: walk around outside for just an hour and see how many instances you can spot of physical laws having special roles in our living…

The atheistic scholar Kai Nielsen objects to the concept of design in the world by saying that were the world to be designed via its laws, it would not be like it is today but instead would be more like the growth of vegetation or fungus—another mere assertion. The only way that Nielsen’s argument could work is if the kind of growth in question were a natural mark of design, like the marks I listed in the previous section—but that’s not the case, now is it? Is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel a vegetation-or-fungus-like growth? Is a computer a vegetation-or-fungus-like-growth? Is a Parcheesi board a vegetation-or-fungus-like-growth?

[Grace Seeker]

Justufy, I would say that all of which your write about bears witness to God, but I don't think you're going to find many who don't already agree with you that would see it as a "logical proof".

[Supreme]

When we look at the greatness and perfection of nature it seems that all has been created with intended purpose, gravitational laws, physic laws, natural laws, this goes for all natural bodies present in our universe.

However natural bodies are unintelligent, they are incapable of deciding of these laws by themselves, however they all act towards a defined end, for example, a planet will orbit around the sun.

The complex array of cells of the human body all have specific functions, acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.

Now that this has been said it is obvious that there exists an intelligent being that guides all that exists and dictates these laws.

And this all men know as God.

This reminds me of Paley's watchmaker analogy. Seeing as everything fits into place, it has to have been created. Unfortunately, such an argument has faults. Life has been evolving now through natural selection for millions of years, and that is how humans have their functions. It did not happen overnight. The Universe has also been changing now fofr billions of years- it used to be glowing hot, but now it is dark and cold. The planets that orbit stars, such as Earth, have taken billions of years to orbit such stars.

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

[JaffaCake]

A+ for effort

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Justufy;

I feel all these things strengthen our own beliefs, and we see perfection in God’s creation. We may feel compelled to pass on our message of hope, but we can do this in loving kindness, with all the people who will still perceive differently.

You have scored a big A for effort from our friend JaffaCake, and that might be good :shade:

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Ummu Sufyaan]

This reminds me of Paley's watchmaker analogy. Seeing as everything fits into place, it has to have been created.

absolutely.
the functioning and timing of nature,etc is far too prefect not to attribute it to a higher being. eg, all our bodily systems work in an organized sequence,
i cant get my head around how we just came about out of nowhere.

Life has been evolving now through natural selection for millions of years, and that is how humans have their functions.

what is the proof/whose is to say that during all these millions of years, plus this "natural selection" concept, human race wouldn't have died out, not evolved.

[JaffaCake]

the functioning and timing of nature,etc is far too prefect not to attribute it to a higher being.
i cant get my head around how we just came about out of nowhere.

If you replace 'nature' in that sentence with 'God' would you still be happy with it?

[Asiyah3]

If

Why don't you believe in God, Jaffacake?

(Just asking of curiosity)

[Trumble]

When we look at the greatness and perfection of nature it seems that all has been created with intended purpose, gravitational laws, physic laws, natural laws, this goes for all natural bodies present in our universe.

Speak for yourself. I see no 'intended purpose'; to me the massive degree of pain and suffering in the world is evidence of just the opposite.

However natural bodies are unintelligent, they are incapable of deciding of these laws by themselves, however they all act towards a defined end, for example, a planet will orbit around the sun.

Begging the question, not 'logic'. What 'defined end'? And why should anything have to 'decide' what physical laws are? The universe does what it does.

Now that this has been said it is obvious that there exists an intelligent being that guides all that exists and dictates these laws.

Which must have been, of course, designed and created by another being as nothing so complex as God could possibly just pop into existence by itself. A little problem which....

And this all men know as God

is solved simply by covering up the "Insoluable Logical Mess" label on the bottle with one that reads, simply, "'God"'. Neat.

[JaffaCake]

Why don't you believe in God, Jaffacake?

Same reason that you don't believe I have a pet dragon.

[Ummu Sufyaan]

If you replace 'nature' in that sentence with 'God' would you still be happy with it?

im sorry, i genuinely dont understand your question. care to clarify?

[JaffaCake]

OK. If I take your statement and replace the subject (function of nature) with God it reads:

"God is far too perfect not to attribute it to a higher being."

Do you agree with that statement and if not, why not?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you JaffaCake,

OK. If I take your statement and replace the subject (function of nature) with God it reads:

"God is far too perfect not to attribute it to a higher being."

Do you agree with that statement and if not, why not?

I guess atheists find their solutions through logic and reason, and we struggle with this thing called faith. So mostly on faith, we trust that God cannot be attributed to any higher being.

Either God exists fully and totally, or there is no God, if he exists fully and totally, then we search for the greatest God, the one above all else, who created all things.

I think we all struggle with faith in God, if we had total faith, we would obey all God’s commands, and not sin.

I guess people in faith are often not a good advert when we say God is on our side in times of conflict.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Supreme]

Greetings and peace be with you JaffaCake,



I guess atheists find their solutions through logic and reason, and we struggle with this thing called faith. So mostly on faith, we trust that God cannot be attributed to any higher being.

It's a common misconception that atheists are more rational and 'scientific', and hence more intelligent, than theists.

[جوري]

I guess atheists find their solutions through logic and reason,

I disagree with that statement.. There is nothing logical or a result of reason as far as the majority of atheists are concerned!
They merely substitute a set of beliefs for another very odd set of beliefs that the majority can't even classify under lucid or coherent!

all the best

[IAmZamzam]

It's like I'm not even here. Did no one even read what I said?

Same reason that you don't believe I have a pet dragon.

This will be about the one billionth time in my life I've had to say this to someone (seemingly literally to me): the next time you complain about why people lump atheists into stereotypes about being morally wretched, consider what disservice and disgrace you do to your fellow atheists and what hypocrisy you do to yourself whenever you feed those stereotypes with your cliched ploy of responding to serious intellectual arguments with insulting analogies which amount to five-year-old-level mockery. What infantile insulting cliche is next after that one? Santa Claus = God? The "leprechauns in your attic" analogy? The "Flying Spaghetti Monster"? If you want us to take you seriously, at least put some effort into pretending to take us seriously. It's a two-way street.

[mariyyah]

This is the proof



Allah - The One and Only God

The essence of godhood is authority, whether it is conceived as sovereignty of a supernatural kind over the whole universe, or on the basis that man is bound by God's law in his worldly life and that all of His injunctions are to be complied with because they emanate from Him.

To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth. How can He have a son when He had no consort? He it is Who created all things, and He alone has full knowledge of all things; That is God, your Lord! No god there is but He, the Creator of all things; Then give your worship to Him; And He it is Who looks after the safety and well-being of all. (Quran 6:102-103)

Lord - Concept and History
A perspective and analysis based on the Holy Quran on the concept of Lord God(Rabb in Arabic) in Islam and some other religions and how it was understood by various nations in history.
The Most Beautiful Names belong to Allah

The most beautiful names belong to God: so call on Him by them; but shun
such men as use profanity in His names: for what they do, they will soon be requited. (The Holy Quran, 7:180)


Concept of Lord God by the Jews and Christians

After Pharaoh's people, the next in historical order are the Israelites and those people who adopted the Jewish religion or Christianity. In their case, there can obviously be no question about their either not acknowledging the existence of God or not believing in His being the Ilah and the Rabb. The Qur'an itself affirms their belief in Him on the point and the question which therefore arises is of the particular error for which they were characterized in the Qur'an as "those who went astray". (Quran 1:7)

A brief answer is:

Say (O' Muhammed): "O' people of the Book: Do not exaggerate concerning your faith, and adopt not the wrong notions of those who have gone astray before you, who misled many others, and themselves too strayed from the straight path." (Quran 5:77)

From this, one may conclude that, in essence, the Jews and Christians too were guilty of the same error into which others had fallen earlier, and that in their case this arose out of exaggerated piety. Let us go into the matter in some detail, with the help of the Qur'an:

(i) And the Jews said: "Uzair (Ezra) is son of God, while the Christians said, "Isa (Jesus) is son of God." (Quran 9:30)

(ii) It was kufr on the part of Christians, to say that God was the same as Jesus son of Mary; though Jesus had himself said, for a fact, "O' sons of Israel, give your 'ibadah to Allah. Who is also your Rabb and my Rabb." (Quran 5:72)

(iii) Verily those who said 'that God is one of three, committed kufr, for there is but one Ilah and there is no ilah but He. (Quran 5:73)


(iv) And there will come a time (the Day of Judgment) when God will ask "O' Jesus, son of Mary, did you tell people to take you and your mother as ilahs besides Myself?" to which Jesus will reply, "Glory be to you! How could I have dared say that which I had no right to utter!" (Quran 5:116)

(v) It is not for any person that, after being given the Book, and being endowed with hikmah [Literally, this word means wisdom; but when used in reference to a Prophet, it means that special wisdom which comes automatically after investment with the office of Prophethood, and which enables the Prophet to understand and expound the implications, and requirements of the Divine Injunctions. A. A. Maududi] and invested with Prophethood, he should go about telling people to give up God and instead give their allegiance and 'ibadah to him. Far more fitting it is that he should say: "Believe firmly in Allah as the Rabb (in every sense of the word), as you find it written in His Book, and as you learn of yourselves and teach others." Nor, again, is it for a prophet to tell the people to regard the angels and the prophets as rabbs. Would he enjoin kufr to you after you have become Muslims? (Quran 3:79-80)

What we learn from the relevant verses is that the first error of the Jews and Christians was to raise their Prophets, and saints, and the angel, etc., to the status of divinity out of exaggerated regard for them, to believe them to have a say in the ordering of the universe and its affairs, to worship and address their prayers to them, treat them as partners in rububiyyah and in godhood in the supernatural sense, and to believe that they could remit their sins and come to their rescue and protect them from misfortune and disasters.

Their second error lay in their making even their scribes and hermits into rabbs, besides God (cf.9:31). In other words, the people whose real function was to expound God's law to others, and to reform the people morally and spiritually to make their conduct conform to Divine precepts were gradually assigned authority to determine, on their own, what was to be treated as forbidden and what as permitted, without reference to what was said in the Book. They could forbid any practices they did not approve, and institute any others they fancied. And in this way both Jews and Christians fell into the same two basic errors as that into which the people of Prophets Nuh and Ibrahim (on whom both be peace), the 'Aadites and the Thamud and the people of Madyan and others had fallen earlier. Like them, they too made the angels and their religious leaders to be partners with God in Rububiyyah in the supernatural sense, and in moral, cultural and political spheres too. And so they began to take their cultural, economic, moral and political principles from human beings, disregarding the Divine injunctions, until they reached a stage about which the Qur'an says:

Have you noticed the people who were given a portion of the Book of God, but who (instead of making it the basis for their conduct), believed in jibt and taghoot? (Quran 4:51)

Say (O' Muhammad): "Shall I tell you who are worse as to their ultimate fate with Allah than even the fasiqs [A fasiq, according to the Qur'an is one who breaks his covenant with Allah, who severs the ties between Him and His creatures and between man and man, and who creates mischief upon earth (cf. note in Tafhim-ul-Qur'an. Vol.1. p.61. relative to 2-27-2). A. A. Maududi]. It is those who drew the curse of God upon them, those who invited His wrath, and of whom many were turned into apes and swine by His Command, and who gave their worship to taghoot; they are the lowest in degree, and the farthest astray from the straight path." (Quran 5:60)

The word jibt is a comprehensive term for all myths and superstitions, embracing such superstitious things as magic, the art of the occult, black magic, necromancy, witch-craft, soothsaying, divination, the belief in talismans or lucky stones or unlucky colors or numbers or natural phenomena, etc., or in the influence of the heavenly bodies on human affairs. As for taghoot, this term applies to every person, or group of persons, or organization or institution which, instead of submitting to God and His Injunctions, rebels against them and virtually sets up himself or itself as god instead, or is so set up by people. So when the Jews and Christians committed the two errors indicated above, the result of the first was that different kinds of superstitious beliefs took hold of their minds and of the second that their scribes and hermits, etc., gradually came to assume the same right to tell people what to do and what not as had been presumConcept of Lord God in Islam

Allah - The One and Only God - Lord - Concept and History
Concept of Lord God in Islam

The foregoing detailed exposition of the misguided conceptions of various pre-Islamic people make it patently clear that from earliest times to the revelation of the Qur'an, none of those whom it mentions as the transgressors, the misguided, and the astray, actually denied the existence of God, or His being the Rabb and the ilah. All, however, went wrong in much the same ways in dividing the attributes of rububiyyah, in its five different senses, into two separate compartments.

Insofar as such attributes of Allah as His being the Cherisher, the Provider, and the Protector and Helper of the creatures in the transcendental sense were concerned, the people regarded them as something apart from the rest. And, although in this sphere they did regard Allah as the Supreme Rabb, they also believed that the angels and various gods, the genii, and invisible forces, the stars, and other heavenly bodies, the Prophets and saints and other holy men, also had different shares in this rububiyyah.

As for the remaining attributes, namely, Allah's being the Supreme Sovereign, the Fountainhead of authority, the Supreme Law-giver, and the Supreme Lord of all creation etc., the people either assigned these roles wholly to particular human beings or, while assigning them to God in theory, in practice treated the entire rububiyyah in moral, cultural, and political spheres as vesting in these beings.

It was for the task of removal of both these types of misconceptions that there were ordained all the different Prophets from time to time (may peace be upon them) and, finally, Allah sent Muhammad (peace be upon him), as His last Prophet. All of the Prophets called to man to believe that there was but one Rabb, that is, Allah, in all of the various senses of the word, and that rububiyyah was not divisible nor was any portion of it available to any creature. The management and control of the universe, they emphasized, was centered is One Authority only, the Authority Who alone had created it, entirely to His own Grand Design and purpose, and Who exercised both de jure and de facto rule over all its affairs, and no-one had any share either in the creation or the running of the universe. As the Center of all authority, God alone was and is the Rabb, in all the senses of the word, both in transcendental matters and the temporal affairs of men. He alone was and is worthy of all worship, of being made the focus of all adoration and prayer. He alone listens to all prayers and He alone is worthy of our reliance and capable of providing for the needs of all too. He alone is at the same time the King, the Lord of the Universe and the source of all law and authority, and He alone has therefore the right to lay down what is right and what is wrong and what ought or ought not to be done. It is in the very nature of things a misconceived notion to think of rububiyyah as something which could be split up into compartments. It is an essential, and exclusive attribute of Allah and; hence, obviously and necessarily indivisible.

This call of the various Prophets (on whom be peace), is brought out in the Qur'an in many a place, e.g.:

Verily, your Rabb is Allah (alone)-He Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and then established Himself on the Mighty Throne; He it is Who draws the night as a veil over the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession; the sun and the moon, and the stars are all subservient to His Law and Commands; Verily, it is patent that all creation is His, and authority too vests in Him, and Most Blessed is he, the Lord of all the Worlds. (Quran 7:54)

Ask them (O Prophet), "Who is it who provides sustenance for you from the heavens and the earth? Is it He in Whose power are hearing and sight, and Who brings forth the living from the dead and the dead from the living, and Who rules and regulates all affairs?" (If you ask) they will say, "It is Allah (Who does all this)." Ask them, then, "Wherefore, then, do you not fear Him (and change your ways)?" (Say): "Such is Allah, your real Rabb and true, and, apart from Truth, what remains but error, and so wherefore do you get turned astray?’ (Quran 10:31,32)

He (it is Who) created the heavens and the earth in Truth; He it is Who makes the night overlap the day and the day overlap the night, and made, the son and the moon subservient (to His Law), each one following a course till an appointed time … such is God, your Rabb; His is the Kingdom and there is no ilah but He; and why, then, do you keep getting turned away? (Quran 39:5-6)

Allah it is Who made the night for you that you may find rest and peace in it, and the day in which you are enabled to see ... Such is Allah, your Rabb Creator of every thing. There is no ilah but He; so why are you deluded into straying? ... Allah it is Who made the earth a place for you to live and rest upon, and the sky a roof over you, and gave you shapes; and good shapes at that, and provided for your provision good and wholesome food; such is Allah, your Rabb, and, so, blessed be He, the Lord of all the Worlds. He alone is the Living (One); there is no ilah, but He and to Him alone then address all your prayers. (Quran 40:61-65)

And Allah (it was Who) created you from clay…He merges night into day and day into night, and made the sun and the moon obey His Law, each following its course until an appointed timer Such is Allah, your Rabb; in Him vests all Sovereignty, while those; on call to besides him possess no such authority; and if you call upon them, they hear not your call and if they did they would not make any reply and, on the Day of Judgement, they will (to you discomfiture), (but) repudiate (and disown) your association of them with God. (Quran 35:11,13-14)

And to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth, and all are abjectly obedient and subservient to Him..., He propounds to you a similitude from your own (experience): Has any of your slaves a share in owning any of the things which We have bestowed upon you? Do they equal right, with you in the ownership and use of these things? Do you fear them as you fear your equals? Thus do we expound arguments to point the way to reality to those with wisdom and understanding, but wrong-doers merely follow their own baseless notions… Therefore (O' Prophet, and those of you who believe in him), set your face steadily and truly to the Faith; establish God's handiwork according to the pattern on which He has read, mankind; no change let there be in the work wrought by Him. This is the straight and correct road, but many among mankind know this not. (Quran 30:26,28,20,30)

And, (the wrongdoers) did not appreciate God (and His attributes) in proper measure, and (they will see that) on the Day of judgment He will hold the earth in his fist, and the heavens will be rolled-up in His right hand; blessed is He and far above the (supposed) partners they associate with Him. (Quran 39:67).

And praise all is due to Allah alone, the Rabb of the heavens and the Rabb of the earth, and Rabb of all the Worlds; and to Him belongs all Greatness and Glory throughout the heavens and the earth; and He is exalted in Power, and the All-Wise. (Quran 45:36,37)

He is the Rabb of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them; so give your 'ibadah to Him (O' Prophet) and remain steadfast in your worship of Him; (and) do yen know of aught like Him? (Quran 19:65)

And Allah (alone) knows the hidden realities of the heavens and the earth, and to Him are referred all matters, so give your 'ibadah to Him (alone), and rely not upon any but Him. (Quran 11:123)

He is the Rabb of the East and of the West; No ilah there is but He, and so entrust all your affairs unto Him (alone). (Quran 73:9)

Verily this brotherhood of yours (that is, of all the prophets) is a single brotherhood, and I am your Rabb, wherefore give your 'ibadah to Me. Men have apportioned rububiyyah and the duty of 'ibadah on their own (without any sanction from Us), and all of them will, ultimately, return to Us. (Quran 21:92-93)

Obey that which has been sent down to you from your Rabb, and do not obey others besides Him (as supposed protectors or guardians). (Quran 7:3)

Say (O Prophet): "O people of the Book: Pledge your creed to that which is common between us and you, that we do not give our 'ibadah to any but Allah and that we associate none with Him, and that we do not asks any human being a rabb besides Him. (Quran 3:64)

Say (O Prophet): I seek refuge with the (Sole) Rabb of all mankind, the (Sole) Monarch over all mankind, and the (Sole) Ilah of all." (Quran 114:1-3)

So whosoever looks forth to meeting his Rabb let him do pious deeds, and associate not any with his worship of Him. (Quran 18:110)

The foregoing verses bring out as clearly as possible that the Holy Qur'an uses rububiyyah as exactly synonymous with sovereignty, and the concept of Rabb it presents is that Allah is the Absolute Monarch of all creation, and its sole Lord and Master, and, as such:

He is our Cherisher and Provider and Sustainer, and of all that constitutes creation; It is He Who looks after all our needs, governs all our affairs, and is alone worthy of our entrusting all our affairs to His discretion; It is by virtue of this very attribute that faith. in Him is the only right basis on which to build up the structure of human life in proper manner, and attachment only to His central Personage is capable of bringing together different individuals and groups and forming them into an Ummah.

He alone is worthy of the 'ibadah, and submission, and worship, of all humanity and other creatures; and He alone is the Lord, Master, and Ruler, of ourselves, and all else besides.

The pagans, whether Arabs or others, have always committed the error, which continues even today, of splitting up the comprehensive concept of rububiyyah into its five facets as if they could exist separately or be vested in different beings. The Qur'an lives most cogent and irrefutable arguments that the Universe is one, and that there is no room in it at all for Supreme Authority and rububiyyah vesting in any but the same Being. The very fact that the universe is subject to one supreme law shows that rububiyyah is reserved solely for Allah, Who alone brought the universe into existence. Therefore, whoever attributes any portion of rububiyyah to any but Him seeks but to depart from or ignore the ultimate fundamental Reality, to turn away from the Reality of the universe, to rebel against Truth, and, by thus going against what exists, only brings loss to himself and ultimate disaster.


ed by those who were open rebels against God.

[cat eyes]

:sl:
I Have to agree with you brother supreme. my brother is well up to date with science because he dose not believe in the existence of god but if only these atheists knew that muslims were the first ever scientists and they proved the existence of god

[Supreme]

It's like I'm not even here. Did no one even read what I said?



This will be about the one billionth time in my life I've had to say this to someone (seemingly literally to me): the next time you complain about why people lump atheists into stereotypes about being morally wretched, consider what disservice and disgrace you do to your fellow atheists and what hypocrisy you do to yourself whenever you feed those stereotypes with your cliched ploy of responding to serious intellectual arguments with insulting analogies which amount to five-year-old-level mockery. What infantile insulting cliche is next after that one? Santa Claus = God? The "leprechauns in your attic" analogy? The "Flying Spaghetti Monster"? If you want us to take you seriously, at least put some effort into pretending to take us seriously. It's a two-way street.

You pretty much stole the words from my mouth. Such demeaning and petty comparisons and sterotypical views of theists are absoloutely unwelcome and untrue.

[Supreme]

:sl:
I Have to agree with you. my brother is well up to date with science because he dose not believe in the existence of god but if only these atheists knew that muslims were the first ever scientists and they proved the existence of god

Actually, the first ever scientists were probably Greeks; however, I do agree that Islam has contributed much to the world of science (although, as in any religion, it falls short of proving to unquestionable doubt the existence of God).

Science and atheism are not synonymous; some of the best scientists on the Earth believe in God, and some of the least scientific peoples on Earth on atheists. There is very little correlation between the two.

[mariyyah]

Actually, the first ever scientists were probably Greeks; however, I do agree that Islam has contributed much to the world of science (although, as in any religion, it falls short of proving to unquestionable doubt the existence of God).

Science and atheism are not synonymous; some of the best scientists on the Earth believe in God, and some of the least scientific peoples on Earth on atheists. There is very little correlation between the two.

What are talking about , The scientists ideas belong to us the muslims because ALLAH SWT show everything on the quran and from the quran they took the scientific ideas and they still practise on it nowdays and thats why so many scientists become muslims because they knows the source was the quran when there is no greek or others exist

In your religion you cannot find any answer because already the real engeel and torat were cheated

[IAmZamzam]

Science and atheism are not synonymous; some of the best scientists on the Earth believe in God, and some of the least scientific peoples on Earth on atheists. There is very little correlation between the two.

Correction: there is no possible correlation between the two because to think that something does not exist is as unscientific a mindframe as anyone could conceivably hold about anything. The absolute outer limits of where a scientific viewpoint can take you in the direction of disbelief about anything is, "I do not yet see any scientific evidence for the existence of X, so until or unless some scientific evidence for it appears that I can validate to my satisfaction and to the satsifaction of those among the scientific community whose opinions I also trust I will take the tentative position--not as a real and firm belief that I actually necessarily have but just as a default position for the sake of what I'm doing, that X does not exist, until or unless evidence to the contrary of this position pops up, if and when that happens." More like agnosticism-by-rulebook-imposed-convenience. But it doesn't even fit that, because science is completely outside the scope of, and irrelevant to, the question of the supernatural. Therefore to reject the existence of God because of a lack of scientific evidence is like refusing to believe that something is buried on the dark side of the moon because nothing was found dug up in a recent excavation site dig by archaeologists in Greece.

[Supreme]

Correction: there is no possible correlation between the two because to think that something does not exist is as unscientific a mindframe as anyone could conceivably hold about anything. The absolute outer limits of where a scientific viewpoint can take you in the direction of disbelief about anything is, "I do not yet see any scientific evidence for the existence of X, so until or unless some scientific evidence for it appears that I can validate to my satisfaction and to the satsifaction of those among the scientific community whose opinions I also trust I will take the tentative position--not as a real and firm belief that I actually necessarily have but just as a default position for the sake of what I'm doing, that X does not exist, until or unless evidence to the contrary of this position pops up, if and when that happens." More like agnosticism-by-rulebook-imposed-convenience. But it doesn't even fit that, because science is completely outside the scope of, and irrelevant to, the question of the supernatural. Therefore to reject the existence of God because of a lack of scientific evidence is like refusing to believe that something is buried on the dark side of the moon because nothing was found dug up in a recent excavation site dig by archaeologists in Greece.

I'm in complete agreement. This war of 'science vs religion' is a very new concept, the two lived in harmony with each other for much of history. The two only really came into conflict with Darwin and his theories (it is worth noting Darwin was actually a theist and then agnostic but was never an atheist). It's only with these extremist atheists such as Dawkins, who believe science is some form of a substitute to religion, who are creating a war out of nothing.

Nice analogy by the way.Science and the supernatural are as unrelated as German and Mongolian. ;D

[Trumble]

Correction: there is no possible correlation between the two because to think that something does not exist is as unscientific a mindframe as anyone could conceivably hold about anything.

If a scientific theory is rejected then it is perfectly rational to believe that any theoretical posits associated with that theory do not exist, as there is no longer any reason to think they do. For example, nobody today believes phlogiston exists, although not so long ago a great many scientists did.

because science is completely outside the scope of, and irrelevant to, the question of the supernatural

In what way? You could perfectly well argue that the supernatural is merely the natural that is not yet understood on the basis of a huge number of precedents alone. For example there are certain forms of human behaviour that might once have been attributed to the supernatural, say to 'evil demons'. They are now attributed to diagnosable medical conditions, the natural explanation replacing the supernatural. In exactly the way I have just described, with the rejection of the 'theory' of demonic possession there is no longer any rational reason to think the theoretical posits associated with it - the demons - exist.

[JaffaCake]

It's like I'm not even here. Did no one even read what I said?

Yes, until you began writing about intelligent design.

If you want us to take you seriously, at least put some effort into pretending to take us seriously. It's a two-way street.

I actually was being serious when I posted that, but now I'm going to have to pretend, pending your response.

Rather than posting the same old explanations like "There's no evidence" or "Creation is self-contradictory", I thought I'd post my answer in a way that might cause the questioner to think about my reasoning rather than just replying with a quick fix for my "problem", which is what I usually get.

to think that something does not exist is as unscientific a mindframe as anyone could conceivably hold about anything.

This is why I solely considered myself agnostic for a long time..

X does not exist, until or unless evidence to the contrary of this position pops up, if and when that happens.

..and that's where I am now.

science is completely outside the scope of, and irrelevant to, the question of the supernatural.

If we're talking about things defined as supernatural, as opposed to Trumble's examples of those things which were perceived as supernatural, then we can't even determine whether they exist or not, and then we're back at the situation above where by default, they don't exist.

[alcurad]

'logic' is not proof of much except adherence to some system of thought built on intuition and so on, dubbing anything as logical or illogical has no weight beyond asserting one's beliefs & axioms/priors.

Trumble: we make a leap of faith when believing in God, just as you do when you believe in Bhuddism, who created the creator is a non-question from this POV.

see, there being any one thing separate from anything else in this world is arbitrary, there exists only 'one' endless stream of existence that we for conveniece define as seperate things.
as for God, if you stop at the sun and moon, that is arbitary, if you stop at black holes and singularities/big bangs that is arbitrary, if you stop at 'laws of physics' that is arbitrary, how do you know if there weren't something before all these?

to avoid such arbitrariness we jump and say the cause of all is God. there is no absolute proof for God in this world, there is only faith, just as there is no 'true' scientific fact, we keep updating them all the time, and even they have embedded metaphysical assumptions.

[alcurad]

If we're talking about things defined as supernatural, as opposed to Trumble's examples of those things which were perceived as supernatural, then we can't even determine whether they exist or not, and then we're back at the situation above where by default, they don't exist.

and that assertion is based on?
I hope you do realize that if such a position were to be applied to everything then not even science would work..

to believe what you want to is your right, and is the basis of all religions-including atheism- but school yard atheism remains just that.

[Grace Seeker]

What are talking about , The scientists ideas belong to us the muslims because ALLAH SWT show everything on the quran and from the quran they took the scientific ideas and they still practise on it nowdays and thats why so many scientists become muslims because they knows the source was the quran when there is no greek or others exist

In your religion you cannot find any answer because already the real engeel and torat were cheated

Mariyyah, are you saying that no science nor any scientific ideas existed before the Qur'an? I think that people such as Archimedes, Ptolemy, Euclid, Herophilus, Hippocrates, and Democritus might take exception to that idea. As would Herodotus who wrote the first scientific history about 425 BCE. And that doesn't even take into account all of the unknown scientists who learned how developed a science of agriculture to plant crops and domesticate wild animals so that cities could be founded and civilization develop rather than humankind continuing to live in hunter/gathering groups; the development of astronomical calendars; the science to metalurgy enabled people to make copper, bronze, and eventually iron implements; the science of agricultural added irrigation as a way to improve crop production; wheels became added to pull carts and chariots were introduced; military science included the production of weapons such as the composite bow; lack of developments in the science of chemistry meant that prior to 2000 BCE wine soured just like milk; the science of mathematics included the introduction of zero and decimals; in astronomical sciences an understanding that the earth was a globe and the circled the sun can be found 2000 years before the Qur'an; and in the science of husbandry breeders learned to cross a male donkey with a mare to produce a mule, but that crossing a female donkey with a stallion produces a hinny which has stronger legs.

It wasn't just Greeks, but Babylonians, Chinese, and all around the world there was science taking place long before Muhammad (p) was even born, let alone your suggestion that "The scientists ideas belong to us the muslims because ALLAH SWT show everything on the quran." That's not to deny that Arab Muslims also made wonderful contributions in many different fields of science. If you meant to imply that the scientific genesis for "everything" is found in the Qur'an or that "scientists ideas belong...to the muslims", I think you will find that history says otherwise.

[Trumble]

If we're talking about things defined as supernatural, as opposed to Trumble's examples of those things which were perceived as supernatural, then we can't even determine whether they exist or not, and then we're back at the situation above where by default, they don't exist.

I would dispute that any such distinction exists. I actually gave an example of each; phlogiston was considered every bit as natural as today we would consider quarks or photons to be. In both cases, though, it is perfectly rational to discard the theoretical posits with the theory as they have no existence independent of the theory that posited them. Likewise, it is irrational to discard them if the theory is not rejected.

'logic' is not proof of much except adherence to some system of thought built on intuition and so on, dubbing anything as logical or illogical has no weight beyond asserting one's beliefs & axioms/priors.

Formal logic has little to do with 'intuition', athough I'll certainly grant the word 'logic' is commonly misused here.

Trumble: we make a leap of faith when believing in God, just as you do when you believe in Bhuddism, who created the creator is a non-question from this POV.

The thread is about a claimed logical proof of the existence of God. While you are certainly right about the importance of faith, it cannot be relevant in that context.

Actually, I do believe the content of my own religious beliefs is ultimately reducible to natural explanation, although I'm less than convinced it's actually within the capacity of homo sapiens to actually do so. I suppose that's a faith-based position too! :D

[Justufy]

The Big Bang is viewed as the efficient cause of the universe. In this it would be the big bang that is the cause of the universe and of reality as we know it, but this brings another question, what caused the big bang? When a child is told something, they immediately ask “why?” They understand that there must be a reason for the thing they have been told, the human mind is not equipped to accept any concept of the absence of cause and effect this is not a flaw, but an inherent reflection of the nature of reality. Same goes for the Big Bang, there must be a reason.



If we look at the law of cause and effect, reality shouldn’t exist unless there’s something outside of, or transcending, nature. This something we ALL know as God, the atheist or the Buddhist denying his existence is at the same time confirming it with this belief.


Praise be to God!

[Justufy]

The thread is about a claimed logical proof of the existence of God. While you are certainly right about the importance of faith, it cannot be relevant in that context.

Actually, I do believe the content of my own religious beliefs is ultimately reducible to natural explanation, although I'm less than convinced it's actually within the capacity of homo sapiens to actually do so. I suppose that's a faith-based position too!

You have failed to provide a serious rebutall to this ONE argument, your dealing with the big guns here, you'r word play and sophistry is of no import to us here.

Put up or shut up.

[Justufy]

Speak for yourself. I see no 'intended purpose'; to me the massive degree of pain and suffering in the world is evidence of just the opposite.

What about the massive degree of wonders, goodness, kindness, generosity in the world? did you miss those? OPEN your eyes and take your head out of your ass.

[Trumble]

You have failed to provide a serious rebutall to this ONE argument, your dealing with the big guns here, you'r word play and sophistry is of no import to us here.

Put up or shut up.

Oh, please. You are no 'big gun'; just an arrogant and largely ignorant small-bore regurgitating a well trodden (and well trodden on) 'argument'. You have already demonstrated on multiple occasions your total lack of comprehension of both the debate going on around you and of the philosphical terminology you lob into it at random. Your bluster does little to conceal your abject failure to answer the points raised.

I have used no 'word play' or 'sophistry', just pointed out that the assumptions and premises - which in this case amount to much the same thing - of your argument are highly questionable, to the extent that the argument itself has little force. They fall on two grounds. The first is what is known as the 'Problem of Evil' which an intellectual superstar such as yourself should already know all about. If you really want me to present it in full, so you can churn out the same ol' unconvincing responses, I'm happy to do so. To put it simply, though, lets start with your own babble;

What about the massive degree of wonders, goodness, kindness, generosity in the world? did you miss those? OPEN your eyes and take your head out of your ass.

Of course I didn't miss them. But their presence is totally consistent with an unguided and undesigned universe - as is that of their opposites which unlike you, seemingly, I also haven't missed. The presence of those opposites, though, is not consistent with a posited omnipotent omni-benevolent God.

The second is simply the absurdity, as has already been pointed out, of claiming nature is 'perfect'. That can be interpreted in one of two ways, either analytic or holistic, as it were. In the first case, such an observation just seems to indicate a standard of perfection that conflicts with common sense. A young child dies painfully of cancer; their body killing them with its own imperfection. 'Perfect'? The rains don't come, the crops fail, and millions starve. 'Perfect?' If you say so. Most would consider such a claim ludicrous.

In the second case, the suggestion is that the universe as a whole is 'perfect'. As a master of logic such a yourself will instantly recognise, the only way that can be true is by definition; in other words the universe is 'perfect' just because you say it is. There can be no objective measure as, there being only one universe (that we can ever experience, anyway), there are no 'imperfect' ones to compare it to. The universe is neither perfect or imperfect, as those terms have no meaning in relation to it. It simply is.

Add to that the totally unjustifiable leap to the existence of a creator even if assumptions of perfection are accepted (I'm afraid the wishful use of the word 'obvious' just expresses an intuition or opinion, not 'logic') and the argument is exposed for the nonsense it is. Unless, of course, you accept the necessity of faith as, mercifully, the theists rather wiser than yourself are quite happy to do.

Incidently, the 'what caused the Big Bang' thing is rather old-hat these days. You might want to read up on the 'Ekpyrotic Universe' or 'Big Splat' model which at least suggests the question might need quite substantial revision before we even consider the answer. Of course, one thing looks likely to remain unchanged; the undoubted appeal of ignoring such considerations in favour of simply labelling what we don't understand as 'God' and marking the problem as solved.

[OurIslamic]

Jazakallah for info from all who contributed :D

[Ummu Sufyaan]

OK. If I take your statement and replace the subject (function of nature) with God it reads:

"God is far too perfect not to attribute it to a higher being."

Do you agree with that statement and if not, why not?

no, because what i meant by "nature is too perfect," is that what makes up nature/its functions and their processes, etc is too perfect. for eg, the systems of the human body (eg, digestive, reproductive, nervous, endocrine systems, etc) all co-operate and function in such an orderly manner to keep us going.

put the human body argument to the side for a second, and consider all other systems and forms of life around us eg, plants, the water cycle, the solar system, etc etc etc...consider not just what appears on the outside, but even the tiny atoms and molecules that make up the larger "body" of that being.

everything has supposedly evolved into the perfect state that we know exists.

what evolutionists claim that the whole universe (again not just what appears on the out side but the atoms and molecules and everything else that keeps it to function as it does) came into being plus organized itself to what it is, is something huge that requires better explaining that they have come up with....its like saying the house (any house) came into existence by itself. somehow the wood for the frame established itself in the ground, then it placed itself so that the bricks can be stacked to form the walls...then the roof tiles must of grew arms and legs because somehow they managed to get up and place themselves neatly on top of the house.

how can we be so certain that in the process of the house building itself (in absence of a builder) that the components that make up the house would
what have come together timingly to build the house? how do we know that the components that build the house wouldn't have died out of existence (as opposed coming together), considering the fact that it is pure coincidence that they came into exsistence to begin with?

[unitedmuslim73]

the most logical proof i got that God really exist and islam is the true religion is from that video and there are still more proofs coming up. Watch this...
:statisfie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc_P278k5SU

[JaffaCake]

no, because what i meant by "nature is too perfect," is that what makes up nature/its functions and their processes, etc is too perfect.

It seems you're entirely missing my point here.

You believe that God is perfect, yes?

According to your previous statement something that is perfect must be attributed to a higher being.

Therefore, God must be attributed to a higher being.

[JaffaCake]

I would dispute that any such distinction exists.

It is an artificial distinction. I suppose to avoid make my point more clearly I wanted to deal with those 'supernatural' things that would not have any kind of detectable manifestation even if they were real (e.g. Heaven).

your dealing with the big guns here, you'r word play and sophistry is of no import to us here.

I lol'd

and that assertion is based on?
I hope you do realize that if such a position were to be applied to everything then not even science would work..

Of course science would work, because that's how science does work.

From Yahya Sulaiman's earlier post:
"I do not yet see any scientific evidence for the existence of X, so until or unless some scientific evidence for it appears that I can validate to my satisfaction and to the satsifaction of those among the scientific community whose opinions I also trust I will take the tentative position ... that X does not exist, until or unless evidence to the contrary of this position pops up, if and when that happens."

That is why atheism is perfectly reasonable and compatible with science, contrary to the ideas of many people here who will write it off as illogical or simply another 'belief'.

[Supreme]

hat is why atheism is perfectly reasonable and compatible with science, contrary to the ideas of many people here who will write it off as illogical or simply another 'belief'

I'm not in contention with such a comment, but do you acknowledge that religion is also at harmony with science?

[Justufy]

The first is what is known as the 'Problem of Evil'

Much of the evil in the world occurs only because we choose to create it. The greatest evils in the world are those inflicted by man upon man. In making the world, God faced a choice: he could create free humans , or he could create some kind of robots , without the ability to make choices of their own with no free will. So there we are.

If you really want me to present it in full

By all means do.

[Justufy]

Moreover in the cases of let’s say disasters and other terrible events not caused by men, you may ask, why do these exists? The answer is simple: the existence of evil is a necessary condition for the existence of certain kinds of good. For example: in the case of bravery compassion, they may only exist if evil exists.


‘’God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.’’
Saint Augustine

[Trumble]

Thank you for the change in your attitude to one that is more appropriate to the purpose of this forum.

In making the world, God faced a choice: he could create free humans , or he could create some kind of robots , without the ability to make choices of their own with no free will.

The obvious response to that is simply to ask why God faced a choice. As an omnipotent being why could He simply not have created a universe in which free will exists but evil does not? The only response, seemingly, is to demonstrate that the relationship between free will and the existence of evil is logical rather than merely contingent, and to do that you would need to start by establishing that free will exists in the first place.

This all all very old and very tired ground, of course, and there seems little point in re-hashing it all. For me, though, the clincher on the subject is the evidential, as opposed to logical problem of evil. Basically that boils down to the suggestion that, even if the argument that evil must exist in order that good must exist is accepted, the amount of suffering endured is grossly disproportionate to that actually needed for that purpose. In other words, a truly omni-benevolent God could have reduced suffering without any undesirable consequences. As this did not happen, there is no reason to think such a God exists.

[Justufy]

As an omnipotent being why could He simply not have created a universe in which free will exists but evil does not? The only response, seemingly, is to demonstrate that the relationship between free will and the existence of evil is logical rather than merely contingent, and to do that you would need to start by establishing that free will exists in the first place.

Actually Platinga has done a pretty good job in his free will defense, I will lay the main lines out for you, Plantinga puts forth a defense, offering a new proposition that is intended to demonstrate that it is logically possible for an omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God to create a world that contains evil.

‘’A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.’’-Alvin Platinga

The argument goes as follows:

1. There are possible worlds that even an omnipotent being can not actualize.
2. A world with morally free creatures producing only moral good is such a world.

[Justufy]

source: wikipedia, I like wikipedia it is well vulgarized.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Trumble,

The obvious response to that is simply to ask why God faced a choice. As an omnipotent being why could He simply not have created a universe in which free will exists but evil does not?

We call this place heaven, but it seems we have to mess up big time on Earth, hopefully we may learn something from our short life here. If someone is killed unjustly in war; God can raise them back to life and put all things right.

If there is no God, then all njustice dies with each person, and nothing gets put right.

In the spirit of searching for a just and merciful God.

Eric

[JaffaCake]

I'm not in contention with such a comment, but do you acknowledge that religion is also at harmony with science?

I hope this isn't going to mean I'm struck from your Christmas card list, but no I can't acknowledge that.

To paraphrase Dawkins (which might get me struck from the list), the existence of God is as much a scientific proposition as anything else; if he existed and wanted to make himself known he could do that and give us observable evidence in the process. It's either true or false.

[AlHoda]

Quran contains many eveidence, you need to have logic sense to understand it.

[Supreme]

if he existed and wanted to make himself known he could do that and give us observable evidence in the process.

See also: the Bible.

[I<3Bush]

I hope this isn't going to mean I'm struck from your Christmas card list, but no I can't acknowledge that.

To paraphrase Dawkins (which might get me struck from the list), the existence of God is as much a scientific proposition as anything else; if he existed and wanted to make himself known he could do that and give us observable evidence in the process. It's either true or false.

If we're having our faith tested while in this life, wouldn't popping out to say 'here I am!' kind of defeat the purpose? All the evidence is already here, whether or not you want to accept it is of course up to you.

[JaffaCake]

See also: the Bible.

And this is the reason why my answer to
"Why don't you believe in God, Jaffacake?"
was
"Same reason that you don't believe I have a pet dragon."

I can tell you that if I like, but it's not evidence.

If we're having our faith tested while in this life, wouldn't popping out to say 'here I am!' kind of defeat the purpose? All the evidence is already here, whether or not you want to accept it is of course up to you.

If God doesn't exist, wouldn't spending your whole life in submission to him be terribly pointless?

As for evidence, see above.

[جوري]

One doesn't need to see the bee to know where the honey came from.. I find the request to see God as absurd as a teacher handing out his students the answer to the test in advance.. to deny God is fine and well... holding on to a universal negative isn't.. if you are going to hold such a position and expect others to subscribe to it, in the very least give the common courtesy to account for everything in existence in a concise logical fashion.
the term 'evidence' is used very loosely here, obviously the standards get lower as brains and morality become diminutive.

2:210 Will they wait until God comes to them in canopies of clouds, with angels (in His train) and the question is (thus) settled?

______________________

6:68 When thou seest men engaged in vain discourse about Our Signs, turn away from them unless they turn to a different theme. If Satan ever makes thee forget, then after recollection, sit not thou in the company of those who do wrong.

Muslims on board should really take heed of this verse before engaging in puerile discussions with atheists!

:wa:

[Supreme]

I can tell you that if I like, but it's not evidence.

What further messages would you like God to send? Subliminal religious sermons during your daily viewing of Eastenders? A host of angels prancing up and down your garden perhaps? Maybe you'd like Jesus to appear on some toast, and then you'll believe. The point is, God sent down the prophets and then Jesus came, and then the other religions that claim to have prophets and gurus and the like sent by God. What further evidence are you looking for? If these religious men who conducted miracles and spoke wisdom only God could have produced haven't convinced you, what will? ( I know, that sounds cheesy).
Thus, this would be a perfect oppurtunity to reflect on the truths Jesus spoke:

11He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,
" 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'

(Mark 4:11-12)

[Justufy]

One doesn't need to see the bee to know where the honey came from.. I find the request to see God as absurd as a teacher handing out his students the answer to the test in advance.. to deny God is fine and well... holding on to a universal negative isn't.. if you are going to hold such a position and expect others to subscribe to it, in the very least give the common courtesy to account for everything in existence in a concise logical fashion.
the term 'evidence' is used very loosely here, obviously the standards get lower as brains and morality become diminutive.

2:210 Will they wait until God comes to them in canopies of clouds, with angels (in His train) and the question is (thus) settled?

______________________

6:68 When thou seest men engaged in vain discourse about Our Signs, turn away from them unless they turn to a different theme. If Satan ever makes thee forget, then after recollection, sit not thou in the company of those who do wrong.

Muslims on board should really take heed of this verse before engaging in puerile discussions with atheists!

:wa:

Even if God's existence is an evidence ,one can truly only know God in faith allone. What we cannot grasp by reason we grasp by faith.

:wa:

[جوري]

Even if God's existence is an evidence ,one can truly only know God in faith allone. What we cannot grasp by reason we grasp by faith.

:wa:

if no logic, evidence or forethought went into the matter then it wouldn't make a difference if you were a Muslim or a Zoroastrian or anything else in between. I am Muslim because I have deliberated, and given it a great deal of study and reflection. We don't 'grasp God' and that certainly isn't the end goal.

all the best!

[Justufy]

But now I want to get back to the Big Bang, here we go:

1.) Everything which begins to exist requires a cause.

2.) The universe began to exist.

3.) Therefore, the universe requires a cause.”

Now let us talk about causal chains:

1.An actual infinite cannot exist
2.A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
3.Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.

from the Evidence from the expanding galaxies in the universe
and from the Evidence from the laws of thermodynamics we know that that the universe is not infinite in the past, but had a finite beginning which necessitates a cause for its existence.


If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:God exists. Voila!:statisfie

[Justufy]

for these who might suggest that this first cause need not be God, Read this first, as it deals with the definition of God.

Here the atheist claims that, even if all of the premises of the Cosmological Argument are true, there is no reason to suppose that God is the only reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe. I will argue that the nature of the First Cause in this instance requires exactly the same entity as outlined by my minimalist definition of God. For convenience, I will list the three major points of my minimalist definition of God here, and I will then demonstrate that the First Cause in question requires such characteristics.


1.) An entity that is above and beyond the laws of the universe, and not subject to the laws of the universe.
2.) An eternally existing entity.
3.) An entity with the ability to make decisions.

We’ll look at each of these in turn.

1.) An entity that is above and beyond the laws of the universe, and not subject to the laws of the universe.

Since the universe contains physical laws, the entity that created the universe would have to be separate from these laws. Therefore, the entity would be operating in a different realm, and would not be subject to the laws of the universe it created. The universe could not be created by its own physical laws, or else it would be creating itself, which is a notion I have refuted previously. Therefore, it seems that this characteristic of God is a necessary component of the First Cause entity in question.

2.) An eternally existing entity.

As mentioned earlier, it is necessary that the First Cause entity is eternal, or else that entity would require a cause itself, based on the principle “Everything which begins to exist requires a cause”. It therefore is true that the First Cause entity in question must have existed eternally, otherwise leading to an infinite regression of events, which is a logical impossibility.

3.) An entity with the ability to make decisions.

This is the most important point with regards to the identification of the First Cause entity. If it can be shown that the entity responsible for the creation of the universe makes decisions, you are basically forced to acknowledge the existence of God in one form or another. A naturalistic cause does not have the ability to make decisions. Therefore, if this point is proven, it seems inevitable that we will be forced to admit that God is the only logical possibility for the First Cause in question, or at least the most plausible possibility.

Such a justification of this characteristic is possible. The First Cause in question requires an entity with the ability to make decisions, because an eternally existing cause without such an ability is not capable of creating something unique. This is because, since it has existed forever, the naturally occurring cause would have already created the universe. An automated, inanimate cause cannot will something into existence, because such a cause only responds to conditions. Since it would have existed forever, such conditions would have been met an eternity ago and our universe would have already existed forever. Either that or the conditions would have never been met, and our universe would not exist. On the other hand, God has the ability to make decisions, and thus can “will” something into existence even in the absence of any automated condition to do so. An inanimate, eternally existing cause cannot create something unique, while an entity that is able to make decisions can.

This concept can be difficult to grasp. Imagine that there was a giant lever, and if this lever was pulled down, the universe would be created, if it is left as it is, the universe will not be created. There are three possibilities for this lever:

1. It may never be pulled, so that no universe is created.
2. It may be pulled from eternity (in other words, it is always pulled down).
3. It may be pulled at a certain time, say, fifteen billion years ago.

Option 1 is false because the universe exists. Option 2 is theoretically possible, but it would result in an eternally existing universe, which has been demonstrated to be false. This leaves Option 3. How could this lever be pulled down after waiting for an eternity at a certain time? Let us postulate a Rude Goldberg machine, in which an extraordinarily complex chain reaction lasting trillions of years leads to the eventual pull of the lever. Could this explain the origin of the universe, in theory?

No, because even an extremely long Rude Goldberg machine would not cause the universe to be created a finite time ago. From the standpoint of eternity, a machine that takes up 10 trillion years has no effect. Infinity – 10 trillion = Infinity. There is simply no way for the machine to effect the infinity. Thus, even a Rude Goldberg machine lasting 10 trillion years would result in Option 2, which is untenable. Thus, a personal agent with the free decision to create the universe (or, to follow the example, pull the lever) is required.

At least three characteristics of God line up perfectly and essentially with the necessary characteristics of the First Cause, including the all-important attribute of being a personal agent with free will capacities. We are forced to conclude that God is the only reasonable solution to the question of why the universe exists, if in fact the three premises of the Cosmological Argument are valid

[Ummu Sufyaan]

It seems you're entirely missing my point here.

seems like you've done likewise.

You believe that God is perfect, yes?

yes.

According to your previous statement something that is perfect must be attributed to a higher being.

i didn't mention that that concept is inclusive of all situations though :$. so i hadn't completely ruled out the room for exceptions...

Therefore, God must be attributed to a higher being.

You seem to be twisting my argument. are you?

[MrSpoon]

What further messages would you like God to send?

Look at yourself and Gossamer Skye, it's obvious to each of you that the other is wrong when it comes to the 'evidence'.

That being the case, why is it any less than obvious that both of you are wrong?

Subliminal religious sermons during your daily viewing of Eastenders?

That would turn my mother into a Satanist.

[جوري]

Look at yourself and Gossamer Skye, it's obvious to each of you that the other is wrong when it comes to the 'evidence'.

That being the case, why is it any less than obvious that both of you are wrong?
That would turn my mother into a Satanist.

Are you confabulating? This thread is about the existence of God, not finite details of which religion. I think it is an inherent problem with most atheists. They take a bigger bite than they can chew out of everything and still come out the fools..

I think you'd feel more at home on the atheist forum, they scrutinize topics at dumbo's pace and congratulate each other for points ill made!

all the best

[CuteStuff]

Are you confabulating? This thread is about the existence of God, not finite details of which religion. I think it is an inherent problem with most atheists. They take a bigger bite than they can chew out of everything and still come out the fools..

I think you'd feel more at home on the atheist forum, they scrutinize topics at dumbo's pace and congratulate each other for points ill made!

all the best

Nice One :);D;D

[Supreme]

Look at yourself and Gossamer Skye, it's obvious to each of you that the other is wrong when it comes to the 'evidence'.

That being the case, why is it any less than obvious that both of you are wrong?
That would turn my mother into a Satanist.

Sorry, is there an argument in there? Is it me? Am I missing the argumentative, valid part of that post?

[Justufy]

Look at yourself and Gossamer Skye, it's obvious to each of you that the other is wrong when it comes to the 'evidence'.

That being the case, why is it any less than obvious that both of you are wrong?
That would turn my mother into a Satanist.

Lol these atheists are all the same, believe me I have experience with them...
knowing a few all they say is where is the evidence? all they want is evidence that can be brought to there level, physical evidence. it doesn’t work like that.
The joke is on them.
some even try to portrait themselves as so rational that the idea of a god is so absurd to them that they have not even given it a single thought. and they will start thinking about it when the real evidence comes forth... talking of head in the sand behaviour.
some will portrait the various inconsistencies in various religious texts. no real proof really.
and to give you the extent of their way of thinking I read somewhere in a message board that if atheists had proof of god they would still not believe in him, calling god mean and so on, so it really gives an idea of the head in the sand bigoted atheist way of thinking. And yes narrow minded, everything has to revolve around them, everything has to be brought to their personal scrutiny, talk of pride...

[MrSpoon]

You're saying that the Bible is evidence of God's existence.

If we're talking about evidence in terms of something which can be used to prove or disprove it (to the extent that we can prove a thing beyond reasonable doubt), then it fails miserably.

Here I am, giving primary testimony to the existence of my pet dragon, and there's no way in Hell you would ever believe me.

How does that fair against a copy of a copy of a rearrangement of a translation of a writing based on the testimony of someone who may or may not have witnessed the event described?

[mariyyah]

You're saying that the Bible is evidence of God's existence.

If we're talking about evidence in terms of something which can be used to prove or disprove it (to the extent that we can prove a thing beyond reasonable doubt), then it fails miserably.

Here I am, giving primary testimony to the existence of my pet dragon, and there's no way in Hell you would ever believe me.

How does that fair against a copy of a copy of a rearrangement of a translation of a writing based on the testimony of someone who may or may not have witnessed the event described?

But if you read and understand our religion the islam believe me you will find it true and logic and real nowdays not like any other religion believe me the christianty and jews are fake

[Supreme]

You're saying that the Bible is evidence of God's existence.

If we're talking about evidence in terms of something which can be used to prove or disprove it (to the extent that we can prove a thing beyond reasonable doubt), then it fails miserably.

Here I am, giving primary testimony to the existence of my pet dragon, and there's no way in Hell you would ever believe me.

How does that fair against a copy of a copy of a rearrangement of a translation of a writing based on the testimony of someone who may or may not have witnessed the event described?

So you were banned, were you?:p

I was simply answering your assertion. You asserted that there was no evidence. I gave yout evidence. Whether you believed that evidence was whole or untrue is a matter of personal opinion. However, I did provide you with evidence, and yet it is evidence you have dismissed out of hand. Let us turn it round. What evidence have you for God not existing? To me, our very existence is proof of God.

Also, interesting quote I read today from CS Lewis:
"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..."

Very true.

[Uthman]

Muslims believe that the Qur'an is a miracle and so this provides proof of the existence of Allah as well as proof that Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) was a prophet of Allah. But how is the Qur'an miraculous? That is explained in this video:

Media Tags are no longer supported

[Trumble]

I think it is an inherent problem with most atheists. They take a bigger bite than they can chew out of everything and still come out the fools..

I think you'd feel more at home on the atheist forum, they scrutinize topics at dumbo's pace and congratulate each other for points ill made!

This one is keeping his head down. The board seems to be a dangerous place for atheists today! :omg:

[جوري]

This one is keeping his head down. The board seems to be a dangerous place for atheists today! :omg:

You are a soft atheist.. one with potential.. haven't given up hope on you completely...

[Gator]

But now I want to get back to lightening bolts, here we go:

1.) Everything which begins to exist requires a cause.

2.) Lightening bolts began to exist.

3.) Therefore, lightening bolts requires a cause.”

Now let us talk about causal chains:

1.An actual infinite cannot exist
2.A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
3.Therefore, lightening bolts cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.

from the Evidence from not seeing lightening bolts then seeing lightening bolts and then not seeing lightening bolts we know that that lightening bolts are not infinite in the past, but had a finite beginning which necessitates a cause for its existence.


If lightening bolts have a cause to their existence then that cause is Thor.
Therefore:Thor exists. Voila! :)

[Justufy]

But now I want to get back to lightening bolts, here we go:

1.) Everything which begins to exist requires a cause.

2.) Lightening bolts began to exist.

3.) Therefore, lightening bolts requires a cause.”

Now let us talk about causal chains:

1.An actual infinite cannot exist
2.A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
3.Therefore, lightening bolts cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.

from the Evidence from not seeing lightening bolts then seeing lightening bolts and then not seeing lightening bolts we know that that lightening bolts are not infinite in the past, but had a finite beginning which necessitates a cause for its existence.


If lightening bolts have a cause to their existence then that cause is Thor.
Therefore:Thor exists. Voila! :)

Ligntning bolts can be explained by science, god cannot, thus your analogy is false.
I sugest you read on about this phenomenon(lightning bolts) before assuming they come from thor's ass.+o(

.An actual infinite cannot exist

Rong, it can when you understand the definition of god.

2.A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite

the cosmos has a begining and will have an end, see your big bang theorie and the life span of atoms.

3.Therefore, lightening bolts cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.

they have existed as long as existence itself and the laws of physics, wich derives from god.

[marwen]

Assalamu alaykom !

Well, I think we're looking here for a logical proof of the existence of God, No ?

Ok, lets begin with a simple logical evidence : if something exists then there is a cause of its existence. I'm sure you all agree with that (whether you are a believer, an atheist or a philosopher).
Now this universe exists (if we look at the universe as a whole coherent entity).
So there must be a cause of its existence, let's say it's just a cause.

But if we look at the design of the universe : e.g: the structure of atoms; the evolution of the embryo to become a human being; the rotation of the earth around the sun following a precise trajectory; the accurate regulation of the atmosphere of the earth that we can't find in any other planet; ... etc.

All these observations show that the "cause" which triggered the existence of the universe has enough intelligence and power to engendrate such a universe. Do you really think it was a chaotic creation of all this universe ?!
I don't think so. It I tell you I will put a heap of bricks and then I will put a bomb under that heap of bricks, and when the bomb explodes, all the brick will fly away and when they fall down they will form a well constructed house. No ! This is not the way we construct houses. And a chaotic event will not lead to a well organised construction. And when we look at the complexity of the universe, we understand that the chaotic factor in its creation is logically excluded. We cannot admit that every part in this whole universe is generated by chance.

The universe is created by a "powerful" and "intelligent" cause, a cause which is conscious of what it is doing, and which is maintaining the control of the universe. And this cause already exists before the existence of everything ( before the universe). All these caracteristics are those of a God.
That cause wihch is responsible of the creation of the world is no other than God.

Conclusion : God exists !

[marwen]

Quote: [ 1.An actual infinite cannot exist ] :
Please, can some one explain what does that mean : actual infinite. And why it cannot exist (is there a proof of that). I just didn't understand :(

[Grace Seeker]

To paraphrase Dawkins..., the existence of God is as much a scientific proposition as anything else; if he existed and wanted to make himself known he could do that and give us observable evidence in the process. It's either true or false.

Sounds to me like you are saying that the absence of evidence is the same as the evidence of absence. But the second simply doesn't follow from the first.

[Gator]

Ligntning bolts can be explained by science, god cannot, thus your analogy is false.
I sugest you read on about this phenomenon(lightning bolts) before assuming they come from thor's ass.+o(.

Your so-called "science" only offers a theory and hardly proof of where lightening bolts come from.

Rong, it can when you understand the definition of god.

Those were your words, big gun.

[Ramadhan]

Look at yourself and Gossamer Skye, it's obvious to each of you that the other is wrong when it comes to the 'evidence'.

That being the case, why is it any less than obvious that both of you are wrong?
That would turn my mother into a Satanist.

Just because there are different people presenting different evidence, then both are wrong?

what kind of logic are you using??

And atheists are so proud of their logic and reasons?

I LOL'd

[جوري]

Just because there are different people presenting different evidence, then both are wrong?

what kind of logic are you using??

And atheists are so proud of their logic and reasons?

I LOL'd

I haven't personally presented the Quran as an argument to the 'proof of God'
I don't think any of the messengers had a book in advance before arriving to the logical conclusion that there is a God. Abraham (p), Mohammed (p), Hence we are meant to reflect on creation as they have, to reach similar conclusions and that is why reflection in and of itself is considered an act of worship.

The fellow is simply inept at distinguishing 'proof of God' from why Christianity and not Jainism, that is a complete other category.. you can't discuss the ornithine cycle, if you don't believe in biochemistry.. we are not discussing why stryer is a better biochem choice than Lehninger, we haven't even established that biochem governs out life all together.. ..

Perhaps that is all the other guy gave him to work with.. but I personally don't make habit to discuss religion with folks who can't elevate their views beyond tooth fairies. It is a waste of my time and a frank display to the puerile nature with which they choose to engage and express their views and where the thread is headed!..

:wa:

[جوري]

If that was the logical conclusion there would be no need for discussion would there?

1- Aren't you banned? This is so funny. I actually laughed quite a bit, thinking of you your face as you are ousted and how pathetic you must be to enter back into a forum, that obviously doesn't want you ..At least you have enough good sense to keep the same SN.

2-I have in fact offered no evidence logical or otherwise on this thread.. I have however stated, that you don't need to cement your evidence from a book, since none of those we consider messengers of God, had a book to rely upon prior to their conclusions!

all the best, and here is to hoping you are banned again!

[جوري]

Should we consider that an argument from authority or an ad populum?

Neither, I have offered no argument.. I am not sure why you are so keen on baiting me on a dialogue.. I find you incredibly un-interesting!

I'm sure you'll arrange that, though I don't see the point, it takes less than 2 minutes to open new mail and forum accounts. I suppose you have to get your jollies somehow.

I did in fact just report you, it is a wonder you are still here.. perhaps the mods are looking for a good chuckle along with other members.. it is interesting to note, though I'd love to take credit for your first ban, I in fact had nothing to do with it..

all the best

[Supreme]

Should we consider that an argument from authority or an ad populum?
I'm sure you'll arrange that, though I don't see the point, it takes less than 2 minutes to open new mail and forum accounts. I suppose you have to get your jollies somehow.

For once, I agree with Gosamer. Your tired atheistic arguments are nothing that any theist hasn't encountered before, and the fact you made a second account is quite sad. Isn't there an atheist forum on the web? I wouldn't be interested in joining, but you may be...

I'm not an expert in logic,

Evidently so.

[جوري]

"There is sufficient evidence in the natural world to prove God exists"
Sounds a lot like a proposition to me. Oh well, my mistake.

I don't initiate propositions and frankly you are not my type!

I know, I'm aware of the reason. If it had been something really worth a ban I probably wouldn't still be here.

lol.. I guess we'll wait and see on that one!

all the best

[Supreme]

Discussing atheism with atheists is like preaching to the choir ;)

I don't understand why you would to 'preach' atheism to anyone. You're hardly going to be rewarded in the afterlife (in fact, in most religions, preaching atheism would be seen as a sin with a punishment of Hell), and anyway, what can you gain from it? A morally corrupt society is really all.

Religion for me is something I am truly proud of and can identify myself by. It is a blessing. I really do see atheism as nothing more than a curse.

[MSalman]

But now I want to get back to lightening bolts, here we go:

1.) Everything which begins to exist requires a cause.

2.) Lightening bolts began to exist.

3.) Therefore, lightening bolts requires a cause.”

Now let us talk about causal chains:

1.An actual infinite cannot exist
2.A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
3.Therefore, lightening bolts cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.

from the Evidence from not seeing lightening bolts then seeing lightening bolts and then not seeing lightening bolts we know that that lightening bolts are not infinite in the past, but had a finite beginning which necessitates a cause for its existence.


If lightening bolts have a cause to their existence then that cause is Thor.
Therefore:Thor exists. Voila! :)

actually these sorts of arguments do not help your cause. Even though, they bamboozle the theists, using this line of argument, for a second and they come up with "this is a false analogy, this does not work for your god, this is what you made up" etc. As a result, the atheists have won the battle and jumping with joy. However, it does not work when the argument is properly constructed. Allow me to demonstrate:

Everything which begins to exist came from something which has always been there, whether it be an event or actual physical object, because there are only two possibilities: 1) either a thing has always been around or 2) it came from something which has always been there. There is no third possibility! For sake of making my point short, we assume that it is shown that there is only one thing which has always been around forever and we call it "the Creator". So, every thing which had a beginning, we call it "the creation", its cause is "the Creator". Since lightening bolt, for example, is a "creation" (it had a beginning), it follows that it must have come from "the Creator".

Now you atheists cannot bring out these silly arguments of "thor god", "pink unicorns", "spaghetti monster", etc., in response this argument because the difference in only in naming. Whether you call "the Creator" thor god or God or Allah do not have much value at this point since you more or less agree to argument or at least the logic behind it. However, we call the Creator with His most beautiful and best Names. So whether you wanna call your Creator with Names He has asked you to call Him with or gibrish names you come up with is simply up to you and you will get what you deserve.

[I<3Bush]

Should we consider that an argument from authority or an ad populum?
I'm sure you'll arrange that, though I don't see the point, it takes less than 2 minutes to open new mail and forum accounts. I suppose you have to get your jollies somehow.

I don't see the point of taking 2 minutes to open a new mail account, when it probably takes one click of the mouse to ban you. Sorry I have to label this as a /fail on your part.

[KAding]

I don't understand why you would to 'preach' atheism to anyone. You're hardly going to be rewarded in the afterlife (in fact, in most religions, preaching atheism would be seen as a sin with a punishment of Hell), and anyway, what can you gain from it? A morally corrupt society is really all.

Religion for me is something I am truly proud of and can identify myself by. It is a blessing. I really do see atheism as nothing more than a curse.

With all due respect, but isn't that a bit of a bigoted attitude? As if atheists are morally corrupt and religious people are not. As if secular ethics cannot be used to promote justice.

How would you feel if I declared that Christianity has brought nothing but a "morally corrupt society" and that it is nothing more than a "curse" on mankind? Such extremist and uncompromising attitudes surely don't help improve understanding?

[marwen]

Such extremist and uncompromising attitudes surely don't help improve understanding?

yes, I see that the discussion is becoming a criticism of conversational attitudes :hiding:, and that's not our topic here . So let's rather focus on the arguments and logical facts and ignore the other things :hmm:

I just want to add a last words about the proof of existence of God :
As a believer, I think understanding that God exists is a way of reasonning superior than the simple logical (or mathematical) proving. We must be more human to believe in God, not just logical thinking automata. As some brothers said, our existence is a good proof that we are created by a great divine Entity which cannot be other then a God.

So let's make our way of reasonning more vast and more flexible, and understand that shallow logic can be not sufficient to deal with some advanced concepts like the existence of God. I'm not good in physics but I think it's like the classic newtonian physics which needed to be changed and completed to fit with new advanced problems.

Peace on you all, :wa:

[Pygoscelis]

God belief is faith based, the religions themselves state this. There is no room for logic in faith. Just as there is no room for science in religion. The two approaches are from opposite ends of the spectrum and are entirely different means of "knowing" things. If you know that Jesus is your saviour, or you know that there is but one god and Mohamed is his prophet, that is your faith and logic is not needed.

As for the hostility shown towards atheism, it is common and I don't think surprising. The mere existence of atheists, that somebody could fail to see another's truth, makes that other's truth less obvious than many would want. Add to that teachings within religions (no doubt there to protect the religions from criticism) that non-believers lack morality and that all morality comes from the religion and I think the attitude is explained in full.

[Supreme]

With all due respect, but isn't that a bit of a bigoted attitude? As if atheists are morally corrupt and religious people are not. As if secular ethics cannot be used to promote justice.

How would you feel if I declared that Christianity has brought nothing but a "morally corrupt society" and that it is nothing more than a "curse" on mankind? Such extremist and uncompromising attitudes surely don't help improve understanding?

No, it is an attitude with historical legitimacy. I know atheists are not, for the most part, 'morally corrupt', but any chimp with a keyboard and access to Wikipedia can see just how morally corrupt the atheist communist states of old were when they weren't destroying mosques and churches, enforcing huge purges and annexing territory. I suppose what I'm trying to say, is atheists can be morally righteous people, but the morals they follow were set in stone by religion.

Atheism includes no hope for the afterlife, no moral framework (especially in the sex department) and encourages people to abandon their culture and identity. I couldn't imagine a more cursed set of beliefs if I tried.

[IAmZamzam]

If a scientific theory is rejected then it is perfectly rational to believe that any theoretical posits associated with that theory do not exist, as there is no longer any reason to think they do. For example, nobody today believes phlogiston exists, although not so long ago a great many scientists did.

If you're trying to tie this into what I said using some analogy of your own, it is extremely unclear at best and supremely weak at worst.

In what way? You could perfectly well argue that the supernatural is merely the natural that is not yet understood on the basis of a huge number of precedents alone. For example there are certain forms of human behaviour that might once have been attributed to the supernatural, say to 'evil demons'. They are now attributed to diagnosable medical conditions, the natural explanation replacing the supernatural. In exactly the way I have just described, with the rejection of the 'theory' of demonic possession there is no longer any rational reason to think the theoretical posits associated with it - the demons - exist.

Look up the difference between supernatural and preternatural.

________________

Jaffacake: I'm not going to bother giving you a proper response if you're just going to chop up what I said and regurgitate little bits and pieces, all without the substance of the whole and every bit completely and utterly out of context, without which nothing you said would even have the illusion of possibly holding any water.

[IAmZamzam]

Here I am, giving primary testimony to the existence of my pet dragon, and there's no way in Hell you would ever believe me.

How does that fair against a copy of a copy of a rearrangement of a translation of a writing based on the testimony of someone who may or may not have witnessed the event described?

Earlier I asked what the next cliche would be in the old tradition of these eye-goungingly-unfair-to-those-hard-to-find-yet-still-existent-mature-and-kind-atheists-who-argue-with-reason-instead-of-jejune-insulting-analogies-like-this-one childish barrage of comparsions that invariably sound like a five-year-old's mudslinging: maybe the God-Santa Claus chestnut, maybe the "leprechauns in my attic" chestnut, maybe the "fire breathing dragon in my garage" nonsense parable. Nope, back to the pet dragon. When wil you people grow up?

[Trumble]

If you're trying to tie this into what I said using some analogy of your own, it is extremely unclear at best and supremely weak at worst.

Having re-read my post I'm afraid I'm not responsible for any comprehension difficulties you might be experiencing. It was a perfectly clear response to your claim that

to think that something does not exist is as unscientific a mindframe as anyone could conceivably hold about anything

There was no 'analogy'. I observed that it is quite rational to think that something does not exist as soon as the only reason for ever thinking it might have done, a particular theory, is discarded, and gave a historical example. The only thing 'supremely weak' is posting a response like yours rather than attempting to actually address the point raised.

Look up the difference between supernatural and preternatural.

I don't need to look it up, thank you. If you actually have a substantive point to make, please make it.

BTW, thanks for that note on 'Givoogle' in your sig, I wasn't aware of that one. I'll be using it from now on.

[IAmZamzam]

Trumble, in case you didn't notice, my post on the actual original point in this thread, which the disbelievers here seem to have cheerfully ignored, was given on about the first page.

[Pygoscelis]

Earlier I asked what the next cliche would be in the old tradition of these eye-goungingly-unfair-to-those-hard-to-find-yet-still-existent-mature-and-kind-atheists-who-argue-with-reason-instead-of-jejune-insulting-analogies-like-this-one childish barrage of comparsions that invariably sound like a five-year-old's mudslinging: maybe the God-Santa Claus chestnut, maybe the "leprechauns in my attic" chestnut, maybe the "fire breathing dragon in my garage" nonsense parable. Nope, back to the pet dragon. When wil you people grow up?

I would very much like you to present us with a polite and non "five-year-old" analogy that you would like us to use instead. One that makes the point intended in the analogies you find so offensive but does not offend. This would both demonstrate that you see the point being made and provide us with something else to say so not to offend you and your brothers in the faith.

[IAmZamzam]

Pygoscelis, it's not my task to choose how to express someone else's point. Of course that doesn't preclude me from taking offense if they express it in an offensive way, let alone offensive in such a typical, predictable, and unfair-to-other-atheists manner.

[Justufy]

I would very much like you to present us with a polite and non "five-year-old" analogy that you would like us to use instead. One that makes the point intended in the analogies you find so offensive but does not offend. This would both demonstrate that you see the point being made and provide us with something else to say so not to offend you and your brothers in the faith.

Here is where you are mistaken about all of these analogies to flying tea pots and leprechauns, evidence of absence is not absence of evidence, sure there is no physical evidence for God but it in no way follows that God does not exist because of that fact, it’s rather the evidence against something that we take into account to prove his being or his non being.

For example we have robust evidence that there are no trolls under bridge and we also have robust evidence that no such a flying teapot exists in our world it’s very easy to prove they do not exist, however there is not a shred of evidence that God does not exist and here is where your little childish examples fall flat.
You may argue that it’s impossible to prove that something does not exist, then again this would be wrong because it’s very easy to prove something does not exist, for example I can prove there are no married bachelors.

[IAmZamzam]

You may argue that it’s impossible to prove that something does not exist, then again this would be wrong because it’s very easy to prove something does not exist, for example I can prove there are no married bachelors.

Who wants to bet one of the atheists in this thread is going to use this as a segue into their own absurd "incompatible properties" arguments for God's nonexistence?

[Justufy]

Who wants to bet one of the atheists in this thread is going to use this as a segue into their own absurd "incompatible properties" arguments for God's nonexistence?

Im just waiting to see that argument come up, and il shred it with glee.:statisfie

[dragonofzenshu]

God almighty can not be proven or dis proven. He's the ultimate enigma.

Threads like this, will only end up in Justufy winning by default because atheists take a position of ignorance on the matter and Justufy simply has to state his case at the beginning regarding the workings and products of God, and post away from there defending that position. The atheists actually have to logically prove that God does not/can not exist, which is impossible.

[IAmZamzam]

Threads like this, will only end up in Justufy winning by default because atheists take a position of ignorance on the matter and Justufy simply has to state his case at the beginning regarding the workings and products of God, and post away from there defending that position. The atheists actually have to logically prove that God does not/can not exist, which is impossible.

Who wants to bet one of the atheists in this thread will use that comment instead/additionally as a segue into the atheistic "burden of proof pushing" tactic? In fact, I may save them the time and make that the subject of my next "Atheistic Chestnuts Refuted" article.

[dragonofzenshu]

Who wants to bet one of the atheists in this thread will use that comment instead/additionally as a segue into the atheistic "burden of proof pushing" tactic? In fact, I may save them the time and make that the subject of my next "Atheistic Chestnuts Refuted" article.

They better watch out, they might suffer the same fate as me :cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:

[tetsujin]

Here is where you are mistaken about all of these analogies to flying tea pots and leprechauns, evidence of absence is not absence of evidence, sure there is no physical evidence for God but it in no way follows that God does not exist because of that fact, it’s rather the evidence against something that we take into account to prove his being or his non being.

For example we have robust evidence that there are no trolls under bridge and we also have robust evidence that no such a flying teapot exists in our world it’s very easy to prove they do not exist, however there is not a shred of evidence that God does not exist and here is where your little childish examples fall flat.

There are many things for which there is no evidence for their non-existence. I am sure you and I could think of dozens in a matter of minutes.

I don't use this example to offend you, but consider the type of evidence required in order to prove there are no other humans in your home. You could attempt to monitor each room from each angle with cameras, you could remove all furnishings and all non-supportive structures, you could use various electromagnetic waves to document the regularity of the structure. All of this would have to be over an extended period of time, around the clock, until you come to realize that the only thing being demonstrated is that there is no one in the home when it is being observed. I illustrate this to show that in order to satisfy a negative proposition requires a certain amount of evidence, and even so, that evidence will never be satisfactory. Now think about the supernatural beings that the others have used as analogies. Easter bunnies, leprechauns, santa clauses, etc... are not normal beings which we encounter in our daily lives. These have properties which necessarily make them special, and are necessarily (for the sake of folklore) ill defined. We would have such a hard time negating the existence of physical beings which we are familiar with, how much harder would it be to disprove beings which are not constrained by what we understand as the physical world.

I don't believe in santa clauses, or easter bunnies, and it's not because I find the idea of those beings ridiculous. I don't believe in their existence because I don't yet have a reason to believe them. If you think about it, there are far too many propositions in the world, whether past or present, and in respect to the vast majority of them we would be on the same page. Just as you wouldn't turn your head every 4 seconds to catch some possible intruder because you have no reason to believe there is one to begin with... and as no one seriously proposes there are trolls under bridges, no one believes there's any reason to look for them.

Just to let you know I'm not trying to be difficult. There have been many cultures which formed a religion which worships the sun. The sun itself was their god, or representative of their god. With respect to the beliefs of those people, I could not say that I am an atheist. They would call the sun their god, I could look up and see the sun, and by their definitions their god exists and I could share that experience. I would not necessarily be an adherent to any other faith or beliefs that they would hold. We don't have to agree that their sun is supernatural or representative of chariot in the sky, because those beliefs would themselves need proof.

You may argue that it’s impossible to prove that something does not exist, then again this would be wrong because it’s very easy to prove something does not exist, for example I can prove there are no married bachelors.

The statement "there are no married bachelors" would not begin or end any sort of proof. The attribute of being married and the attribute of being a bachelor are mutually exclusive. Any two terms which are mutually exclusive by definition will work.

All the best,


Faysal

[Pygoscelis]

Pygoscelis, it's not my task to choose how to express someone else's point. Of course that doesn't preclude me from taking offense if they express it in an offensive way, let alone offensive in such a typical, predictable, and unfair-to-other-atheists manner.

Actually I think it is your task, because I suspect you will take offense no matter how it is expressed. I think the point itself offends you and not the way it is expressed. I'd be happy if that were not the case, so prove me wrong and express it in a way you don't find offensive.

[Pygoscelis]

You may argue that it’s impossible to prove that something does not exist, then again this would be wrong because it’s very easy to prove something does not exist, for example I can prove there are no married bachelors.

You do that by definition. That is just a trick of language.

But yes indeed some things can be falsified. But the examples people give such as invisible unicorns etc are purposefully made to be non-falsifiable, just a gods are non-falsifiable.

[Pygoscelis]

God almighty can not be proven or dis proven. He's the ultimate enigma.

Threads like this, will only end up in Justufy winning by default because atheists take a position of ignorance on the matter and Justufy simply has to state his case at the beginning regarding the workings and products of God, and post away from there defending that position. The atheists actually have to logically prove that God does not/can not exist, which is impossible.

Entirely depends on how you define the word "atheist". I have noticed that a lot of religious people like to define the word as one who is certain that there is no god. However every self-defined atheist I've met defines it as one lacking a belief in gods (just as one lacks a belief in many other things, indeed just as theists lack beliefs in competing gods). You are right of course that nobody can prove that any particular god (space alien or what have you) don't exist. But that doesn't establish or even hint that they do.

[Ramadhan]

Entirely depends on how you define the word "atheist". I have noticed that a lot of religious people like to define the word as one who is certain that there is no god. However every self-defined atheist I've met defines it as one lacking a belief in gods (just as one lacks a belief in many other things, indeed just as theists lack beliefs in competing gods).

Muslims believe that there is no god but Allah
So, we actually believe there are no competing gods.

To turn it around, using your analogy, atheists believe that there is no god.

Bad analogy on your part.

[Pygoscelis]

If you lack belief in those gods its one thing. If you are absolutely certain that those gods don't exist, then you are more certain that these gods don't exist than atheists are. Kind of an ironic in a way.

[Ramadhan]

If you lack belief in those gods its one thing.

I don't lack belief in competing gods.
I believe there are no competing gods or in other words I don't believe there are competing gods.
How many times do I have to repeat before the meaning is clear to you?

If you are absolutely certain that those gods don't exist, then you are more certain that these gods don't exist than atheists are. Kind of an ironic in a way.

I believe in Allah, the one and only God.
You don't believe god exists.

The only ironic thing about it is that we both are creations, and yet I submit to Allah while you reject even the existence of Him.

[Pygoscelis]

I submit to Allah while you reject even the existence of Him.

You imply that I have a choice in the matter. This is another reason why people use the comparisons to outlandish things like invisible unicorns. To illustrate to you that there is no such choice. I could no more choose to believe in your god than you could choose to believe in invisible unicorns.

[IAmZamzam]

Actually I think it is your task, because I suspect you will take offense no matter how it is expressed. I think the point itself offends you and not the way it is expressed. I'd be happy if that were not the case, so prove me wrong and express it in a way you don't find offensive.

You're the one claiming things about me you couldn't possibly know. If anyone has anything to prove here, it's you. If you're so far beyond the boundaries of understanding the most basic rules of tact that you can't imagine why a comparison of God to fairy tale creatures would offend theists without other, less insulting types of comparison doing so, that's your problem, not mine.

[IAmZamzam]

If you lack belief in those gods its one thing. If you are absolutely certain that those gods don't exist, then you are more certain that these gods don't exist than atheists are. Kind of an ironic in a way.

Are you trying to give us that old "all people are atheists in a way because everyone disbelieves in some god or other" line?

You imply that I have a choice in the matter. This is another reason why people use the comparisons to outlandish things like invisible unicorns. To illustrate to you that there is no such choice. I could no more choose to believe in your god than you could choose to believe in invisible unicorns.

Perhaps the choice isn't what you think it is.

[Woodrow]

You imply that I have a choice in the matter. This is another reason why people use the comparisons to outlandish things like invisible unicorns. To illustrate to you that there is no such choice. I could no more choose to believe in your god than you could choose to believe in invisible unicorns.

I have to agree most if not all atheists are not so because of choice. Us theists also have no choice. We have what we believe to be indisputable proof and can not deny the existence of God(swt)

[Pygoscelis]

Are you trying to give us that old "all people are atheists in a way because everyone disbelieves in some god or other" line?

I'm not familiar with these "lines" of yours, but no that isn't the point.

It goes further than that. If he is certain these gods do not exist then he is MORE of a disbeliever than atheists are. Atheists merely don't believe gods exist. He is certain these gods don't exist.

Perhaps the choice isn't what you think it is.

What is it? And what do you say I think it is?

[Pygoscelis]

I have to agree most if not all atheists are not so because of choice. Us theists also have no choice. We have what we believe to be indisputable proof and can not deny the existence of God(swt)

Exactly. From your perspective I would expect it'd be hard if not impossible NOT to believe.

I'm not sure its equivalent though, but then I've never been a theist so I don't and can't know. We'd have to ask somebody who has been both. I do have to wonder what "faith" is for though if the two viewpoints are as self evident.

[Justufy]

Entirely depends on how you define the word "atheist".

here is the definition from the merriam Webster

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no diety

I have noticed that a lot of religious people like to define the word as one who is certain that there is no god.

Well no atheism per its definition is the doctrine that there is no God. If you decide to make more modest claims like '' I don't know'' that leaves you at best with agnosticism.

However every self-defined atheist I've met defines it as one lacking a belief in gods

Sorry but this does not fit the definition of atheism, if you simply lacked a belief in somehting it would no be atheism it would be something else, for example a young baby that has never heard about God fits this definition, And I also fit this definition If I have never heard of a distant and obscure Diety, then I can affirm to lack belief.

(just as one lacks a belief in many other things, indeed just as theists lack beliefs in competing gods).

Why then, do we so often reject the existence of the gods of other religions? Many of the gods we have not even heard of before, so how can we say that we have rationally decided to reject them?

There are several reasons we don’t give the claims of many other religions much credence. First of all, the vast majority of other religions have simply failed to produce a positive case. This is where the atheists will claim that the theist is being inconsistent. However,I am only inconsistant if I have not produced my own positive case.If I provides evidence for his or my own belief, there is no intellectual sacrifice related to belief in this very God.

Now I would like to know your reason for your athesitic world view, and your reasons for coming here as an atheist militant? surely God cannot be proven false, you have 0 evidence for your claims, you hold them by faith.

[Justufy]

I'm not familiar with these "lines" of yours, but no that isn't the point.

It goes further than that. If he is certain these gods do not exist then he is MORE of a disbeliever than atheists are. Atheists merely don't believe gods exist. He is certain these gods don't exist.



What is it? And what do you say I think it is?

That does not fit with any common definition of atheism.

[Justufy]

You do that by definition. That is just a trick of language.

Im not playing on words, In another example I can prove that their are no living t-Rex on the planet. Its very easy to prove somehting does not exist.

But yes indeed some things can be falsified. But the examples people give such as invisible unicorns etc are purposefully made to be non-falsifiable, just a gods are non-falsifiable

Well having something and giving it the known attributes of God and labelling it a unicorn or pixies wont win you any point, which is why these analogies are useless. Its a bit childish and does not accomplish anything in proving the atheistic view.

[Trumble]

In another example I can prove that their are no living t-Rex on the planet. Its very easy to prove somehting does not exist.

Go on then. What is your logical proof that there are no living T-Rexs on the planet?

The two situations are completely different. The argument that there can be no married bachelors 'proves' nothing beyond the accepted meaning of its own premises. An argument that there are no living T-Rexs involves an empirical claim about the universe. Any claim for or against the existence of God is of the second type, not the first.

[IAmZamzam]

I'm not familiar with these "lines" of yours, but no that isn't the point.

What is the point then? The point, not the meaning. As in what's even the point of bringing it up? I can't see any unless it's the rationale behind what you're saying is that equally cliched circular thinking that religions (or gods' existence) are in such multitudes that the odds are very low of any being correct. I hope that isn't it, because I shouldn't even have to point out the fallacies involved.

It goes further than that. If he is certain these gods do not exist then he is MORE of a disbeliever than atheists are. Atheists merely don't believe gods exist. He is certain these gods don't exist.

So just because you're an atheist you can somehow speak for every single other living atheist on the planet? You people don't even have any doctrines, so how could this be the case? I've known of some very certain ones. For all you or I know they could even be in the majority.

What is it? And what do you say I think it is?

The choice is whether or not to assess the situation fairly, fully, and with an open mind, which may or may not lead you to our own conclusion. For example, my (admittedly clipped and edited) excerpt summarizing why the argument from natural law works and the inevitable defenses against it fail has still gone ignored since the beginning of this thread, apparently by you as much as anyone. That's just an example. (And any objections I missed will likely be covered in future "Atheistic Chestnuts Refuted" articles.

[Justufy]

Go on then. What is your logical proof that there are no living T-Rexs on the planet?

The two situations are completely different. The argument that there can be no married bachelors 'proves' nothing beyond the accepted meaning of its own premises. An argument that there are no living T-Rexs involves an empirical claim about the universe. Any claim for or against the existence of God is of the second type, not the first.

Well, there is absolutely no empirical evidence against God, however we can make a Good case that God does indeed exists.

Like I said the absence of evidence is not proof of the non existence of God here or anything for that matter, rather it’s the evidence against a claim that is.

In my T-Rex example we have robust evidence that there are no living t-Rex on the face of this planet.

In an other example: If I am a stock broker and I give you a number of reasons to invest your money in the stock market, and these reasons seem unconvincing to you, it in no way follows that the stock market won’t go up... or that it’s going to go down! So the arguments for God’s existence could all fail and it would not follow that God does not exist.

Do you follow how this works?

[Justufy]

I will now add a ''cool'' spin to my thread with this argument.

Premise 1 A thing has maximal greatness if and only if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.

Premise 2 Whatever has maximal excellence is omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect.

Premise 3 There is a possible world in which the property of possessing maximal greatness is exemplified.

Premise 4 The property of possessing maximal greatness is exemplified in every possible world.

Premise 5 If maximal greatness is exemplified in every world, then it is exemplified in this world.

premise 6 Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

I think its fair to say that this is a sound argument for the existence of God

granted that P1, P2, P4, and P5 are all true: P1 and P2 by definition and P4 and P5 by logical inference. and P6 follows logically.

But what about p3? Well, God's existence is certainly possible in some possible worlds, and if God is possible then he is necessary. Because
there is no sense in speaking of a merely possible necesary being.
If God exists then God's existence cannot be a contingent fact.

He either exists or he does not exist.

[Trumble]

In my T-Rex example we have robust evidence that there are no living t-Rex on the face of this planet.

Perhaps. People had 'robust evidence' that the Ceolacanth had been extinct for 60 million years as well. But your claim was not of 'robust evidence' but of proof in the same (logical) sense that it can be proven there are are no married bachelors. I'm still waiting.

Incidently, I would suggest that the atheist can easily claim that there is, in fact, rather more empirical evidence for living T-Rexs than there is for God in that, at least, we have concrete physical evidence that at one time at least they did exist in our universe, and hence that they can. The same cannot be said for God where that 'Good case' is no more than circumstantial at best!

Do you follow how this works?

In exactly the same way that "so the arguments for God’s non-existence could all fail and it would not follow that God does exist"! I agree, but where does that get us? Your claim was not that, but that

Its very easy to prove something does not exist

.. something that, with the exception of what amounts to a trivial special case of absolutely no relevance to the subject at issue (i.e. God), you seem totally unable to substantiate.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Sorry but this does not fit the definition of atheism,

The statement by Pygo fits the definition of atheism that you yourself have given perfectly. What is the problem?

if you simply lacked a belief in somehting it would no be atheism it would be something else, for example a young baby that has never heard about God fits this definition,

Correct!

And I also fit this definition If I have never heard of a distant and obscure Diety, then I can affirm to lack belief.

I think it would be up to you if you wanted to describe yourself as an atheist with respect to that particular deity. Clearly you're not an atheist in the general sense.

I will now add a ''cool'' spin to my thread with this argument.

You've just discovered the ontological argument. Now that is cool, I have to admit. :D

Peace

[Justufy]

You've just discovered the ontological argument. Now that is cool, I have to admit.

cool!

now go ahead and refute this particular ontological argument, That could be cool also!

I don't think anyone here who has not made up their mind alredy will find it convincing proof of God I do believe however that it establishes, not the truth of theism, but its rational acceptability.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

cool!

now go ahead and refute this particular ontological argument, That could be cool also!

Well, maybe, but it's been done so many times before I'm not sure there's much point. That doesn't detract from the argument itself - it's undoubtedly very clever and persistent. I think Kant had the measure of it in his Critique of Pure Reason, but, really, it's up to you to decide whether you want to believe it or not.

Peace

[Ramadhan]

You imply that I have a choice in the matter. This is another reason why people use the comparisons to outlandish things like invisible unicorns. To illustrate to you that there is no such choice. I could no more choose to believe in your god than you could choose to believe in invisible unicorns.

You have no choice in the matter?
You are either talking nonsense or you are lying.
But let's humor you and you truly have no choice, so who forces you to have your belief? Which country do you live in?

I choose not to believe in invisible unicorns, and you choose not to believe in god.

It is as simple as that.

[Pygoscelis]

I choose not to believe in invisible unicorns, and you choose not to believe in god.
It is as simple as that.

If you in all seriousness have the power to make yourself believe in invisible unicorns then you have an ability I lack.

[Ramadhan]

If you in all seriousness have the power to make yourself believe in invisible unicorns then you have an ability I lack.

Again, you are back to comparing god with invisible unicorn.

This shows you lack seriousness.
And it is obvious that for you whether God exists or not is no big deal, otherwise you would never have brought in invisible unicorns into such discussions.

[Trumble]

Again, you are back to comparing god with invisible unicorn.

This shows you lack seriousness.
And it is obvious that for you whether God exists or not is no big deal, otherwise you would never have brought in invisible unicorns into such discussions.

I'm afraid in some circumstances that comparison is quite legitimate when offered in argument by an atheist, something some people need to 'get over' rather than taking umbrage on each occasion.

This is one of them. You cannot choose what you believe. All you can do is choose, compare, and weigh up the evidence you use to formulate beliefs. That is what atheists do, before concluding and hence believing that God is no more real than that invisible unicorn. They do not choose not to believe any more than theists choose to believe.

[Ramadhan]

I'm afraid in some circumstances that comparison is quite legitimate when offered in argument by an atheist, something some people need to 'get over' rather than taking umbrage on each occasion.

I disagree.
The comparison is never legitimate in all circumstances because the implications of finding truth or proof whether God exists are fundamentals and cannot be exaggerated, while the implications whether invisible unicorns exist is no more earth shattering than finding that Kim Jong Il is indeed an alien.

[Trumble]

The truth or falsity of a proposition is not dependent on the implications of whether it is true or false. I wouldn't deny that issues of God are far more important than those of invisible unicorns. However that has no universal relevance to arguments presented with regard to the existence or non-existence of either beyond, perhaps, how much effort it is worth putting into them.

[Pygoscelis]

Naidamar, is this a case of english not being your first language or are you now playing games?

You stated that you choose not to believe in invisible unicorns.

I choose not to believe in invisible unicorns, and you choose not to believe in god.

To which I responded that I can not make myself believe in such things. Making the point that belief (in unicorns or in gods) is not voluntary.

To which you responded

Again, you are back to comparing god with invisible unicorn.

Um.... you were just doing the same thing.

[IAmZamzam]

Captain Obvious to the rescue: regardless of anything else about the situation, comparing God to invisible unicorns is still inevitably going to come across to the theist, rightly or not, as you not taking them and/or the matter seriously, and as insult or mockery, and therefore will either (1) derail the conversation, as has happened here, (2) inspire them not to want to take you seriously, or (3) at the very, very least distract from your point and likely make them dislike you needlessly. Rather likely all three. Therefore don't do it.

[Pygoscelis]

And yet you provide no alternate means for making the point. I have to question if you understand it or if you are too blinded by being offended by the examples used to see it. If you can make it in some other way, as I said before, that'd be great. We can then show people the point and not offend them. Otherwise, theists will just have to grow a thicker skin.

Atheists have been told by theists for centuries now that they deserve eternal torture (hell) for not believing in these gods, something the theists clearly endorse (they say their God demands this and they stand by their God as just and good). Now theists can't handle having their gods compared to unicorns in order to make a point, a point which I'm not aware of another way to make?

[tetsujin]

And yet you provide no alternate means for making the point. I have to question if you understand it or if you are too blinded by being offended by the examples used to see it. If you can make it in some other way, as I said before, that'd be great. We can then show people the point and not offend them. Otherwise, theists will just have to grow a thicker skin.

Atheists have been told by theists for centuries now that they deserve eternal torture (hell) for not believing in these gods, something the theists clearly endorse (they say their God demands this and they stand by their God as just and good). Now theists can't handle having their gods compared to unicorns in order to make a point, a point which I'm not aware of another way to make?

Well you can, it just requires a detour. It's time for a role reversal. Muslims engaged in this thread can remain Muslims. I will play the role of a believer.

To Yahya Sulaiman, naidamar, justify, and other Muslims

I propose to you, that the god Chaos, creator of the universe, exists. She gave birth to Gaia, Eros, and Nyx. Gaia later gave birth to Uranus, who she eventually married, and through Tethys then Clymene we come to brothers Epimetheus and Prometheus who created the creatures of the earth. Prometheus being jealous and clever stole fire from Zeus to give it to his favorite creation (Man). We celebrate that act to this day by symbolizing that journey at the start of every Olympic game (summer and winter).

Saturn, the roman counterpart to Cronus (Greek), was the god of agriculture and harvest. Upon the instructions of his mother (Terra/Gaea), he castrated his father and became the ruler of the universe, eventually bringing the golden age to Rome. We celebrate his rule each year with the Feast of Saturnalia which is held every year at the Winter Solstice. We even honor him each week by naming the seventh day after him (Saturday).

I presume you believe that no god(s) exist(s) other than Allah. Can you provide sufficient evidence to me that these gods do not or did not exist?

All the best,

Faysal

[جوري]

Well you can, it just requires a detour. It's time for a role reversal. Muslims engaged in this thread can remain Muslims. I will play the role of a believer.

To Yahya Sulaiman, naidamar, justify, and other Muslims

I propose to you, that the god Chaos, creator of the universe, exists. She gave birth to Gaia, Eros, and Nyx. Gaia later gave birth to Uranus, who she eventually married, and through Tethys then Clymene we come to brothers Epimetheus and Prometheus who created the creatures of the earth. Prometheus being jealous and clever stole fire from Zeus to give it to his favorite creation (Man). We celebrate that act to this day by symbolizing that journey at the start of every Olympic game (summer and winter).

Saturn, the roman counterpart to Cronus (Greek), was the god of agriculture and harvest. Upon the instructions of his mother (Terra/Gaea), he castrated his father and became the ruler of the universe, eventually bringing the golden age to Rome. We celebrate his rule each year with the Feast of Saturnalia which is held every year at the Winter Solstice. We even honor him each week by naming the seventh day after him (Saturday).

I presume you believe that no god(s) exist(s) other than Allah. Can you provide sufficient evidence to me that these gods do not or did not exist?

All the best,

Faysal

Give us the holy books of said gods and the & lives & works of their messengers and then we'll take it from there!

all the best!

[aamirsaab]

Well you can, it just requires a detour. It's time for a role reversal. Muslims engaged in this thread can remain Muslims. I will play the role of a believer.

To Yahya Sulaiman, naidamar, justify, and other Muslims

I propose to you, that the god Chaos, creator of the universe, exists. She gave birth to Gaia, Eros, and Nyx. Gaia later gave birth to Uranus, who she eventually married, and through Tethys then Clymene we come to brothers Epimetheus and Prometheus who created the creatures of the earth. Prometheus being jealous and clever stole fire from Zeus to give it to his favorite creation (Man). We celebrate that act to this day by symbolizing that journey at the start of every Olympic game (summer and winter).

Saturn, the roman counterpart to Cronus (Greek), was the god of agriculture and harvest. Upon the instructions of his mother (Terra/Gaea), he castrated his father and became the ruler of the universe, eventually bringing the golden age to Rome. We celebrate his rule each year with the Feast of Saturnalia which is held every year at the Winter Solstice. We even honor him each week by naming the seventh day after him (Saturday).

I presume you believe that no god(s) exist(s) other than Allah. Can you provide sufficient evidence to me that these gods do not or did not exist?

All the best,

Faysal

In addition to GS's requirements, I would like:
* An economic system based on the teachings of said deity
* A completelegal system (as above)
* A societal ideal/system (as above)
* List of rituals
* A plausible explanation to why there are many Gods (your example has several siblings) yet I must only obey one

Failure to provide any of those will result in completely zero harm to you, but it does weaken your example somewhat. I like to make an informed decision on the life-long paths I choose so require some information.

[جوري]

In addition to GS's requirements, I would like:
* An economic system
* A completelegal system
* A societal ideal/system
* List of rituals

Failure to provide any of those will result in completely zero harm to you, but it does weaken your example somewhat. I like to make an informed decision on the life-long paths I choose so require some information.

Not everyone an distinguish Medicine from quackery hence:

http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing.../913756-1.html

so you have idiots believing that
http://www.amazon.com/Similasan-Anxi...5&sr=8-1-spell

really will cure your anxiety over something like an SSRI which is FDA approves because doctors and pharmaceutical companies along with the FDA are evil but 'holistic medicine' is well holistic..
you even have strong endorsement from PhD's on the site
boasting the wonderful ''all natural ingredient' of Argentum nitricum!.. in other words Silver nitrate what they put in new borns eyes to ward of chlamydial infections.. not recommended for ingestion, least of which on daily basis let alone to treat anxiety !..

remember this guy

yup that is argyria (caused by silver ingestion) .. can your average sap put two and two together?
no, all they know is that it works.. no research goes into the matter...

so how can you expect someone to distinguish the difference between religion and myth, science and science fiction if even the term 'Mechanism of action is elusive'

They have beliefs (they might not realize it but they do) and no being an atheist isn't the default state (Quality research has shown otherwise)
They ask for evidence but fail to provide evidence for the reverse..

what do we call that?

I call it a ridiculous waste of my time..

:wa:

[- Qatada -]

Antony Flew;

Flew has subsequently changed his position given in the Habermas interview as justification for his endorsing of deism. In October 2004 (before the December publication of the Flew-Habermas interview), a letter written to Richard Carrier of the Secular Web, stated that he was a deist and also said that "I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations."[13] Flew also said: "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."[13]


In another letter to Carrier of 29 December 2004 Flew went on to retract his statement, writing "a deity or a 'super-intelligence' [is] the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature", and "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction". He blames his error on being "misled" by Richard Dawkins, claiming Dawkins "has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter".[13]


The work of physicist Gerald Schroeder had been influential in Flew's new belief, but Flew told Carrier that he had not read any of the critiques of Schroeder that Carrier referred him to.

1. ^ a b c Richard Carrier: Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of SecWeb, 10 October 2004.
2. ^ Antony Flew: A response to Raymond Bradley The Open Society Vol. 79, No 4, Spring 2006.

Antony Flew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[tetsujin]

Give us the holy books of said gods and the & lives & works of their messengers and then we'll take it from there!

all the best!

My gods would not cease to exist if you find their messengers or the scriptures reprehensible. However, if you wish to seek the truth:

Heisod: Works and Days, Theogeny

and

Shield of Heracles

Homer: Iliad, Odyssey


All the best,


Faysal

[tetsujin]

In addition to GS's requirements, I would like:
* An economic system based on the teachings of said deity
* A completelegal system (as above)
* A societal ideal/system (as above)
* List of rituals
* A plausible explanation to why there are many Gods (your example has several siblings) yet I must only obey one

Failure to provide any of those will result in completely zero harm to you, but it does weaken your example somewhat. I like to make an informed decision on the life-long paths I choose so require some information.

Okay, presuming I cannot provide a legal or economic or social system based on their teachings, how does that weaken my argument?

Also for the sake of argument, let’s assume my gods demand everything contradictory to whatever you currently choose to believe. I’ll give you free reign of this. How does that weaken my argument?

Lets be honest, I haven’t actually made an argument yet, I’ve only proposed these gods exist. I’m also not interested in defining a new religion. I’ve only proposed the existence of these gods.


All the best,

Faysal

[جوري]

My gods would not cease to exist if you find their messengers or the scriptures reprehensible. However, if you wish to seek the truth:

Heisod: Works and Days, Theogeny

and

Shield of Heracles

Homer: Iliad, Odyssey


All the best,


Faysal

a couple of those were indeed fun to read, homer was a delight.. I fail to glean any moral/social/religious/after life meaning from them..

can you tell the difference between life as you live it and a movie? can you tell the difference between science and science fiction? can you tell the difference between real medicine and quackery? can you tell the difference between mythology and history? can you tell the difference between a book that claims to be from God and a Greek poem by a Greek poet describing rural life?

I'll have to assume some level of intelligence here (I don't know why I like the benefit of the doubt) if you are going to engage in such a debate, carry yourself to a level, you only insult yourself with a wikpedia article and a half assed attempt to turn this around! (see my previous reply to aamir) in fact the note I closed with there, should be the one I close with here too!


all the best

[tetsujin]

can you tell the difference between life as you live it and a movie?

Usually

can you tell the difference between science and science fiction?

The line seems to get finer by the day.

can you tell the difference between real medicine and quackery?

see previous

can you tell the difference between mythology and history?

Well you're clearly not being serious about this. I've presented to you Gods that thousands of people have believed. Their tales have shaped the culture and history of our people in significant ways. We owe them great gratitude. Like it or not they are as much a part of history as what you call mythology.

can you tell the difference between a book that claims to be from God and a Greek poem by a Greek poet

I've never seen nor heard a book make a claim. I've seen and heard plenty of people make claims.

I'll have to assume some level of intelligence here (I don't know why I like the benefit of the doubt) if you are going to engage in such a debate, carry yourself to a level, you only insult yourself with a wikpedia article and a half assed attempt to turn this around! (see my previous reply to aamir) in fact the note I closed with there, should be the one I close with here too!

Thanks for dropping in.

All the best,


Faysal

[جوري]

Usually

oh good!

The line seems to get finer by the day.

better still!

see previous

voids happen

Well you're clearly not being serious about this.

Serious topics require serious thought.. imbecility can be answered with a quip!

I've presented to you Gods that thousands of people have believed.

and?

Their tales have shaped the culture and history of our people in significant ways.

How so?

We owe them great gratitude. Like it or not they are as much a part of history as what you call mythology.

Harry potter is part of history too.. I am not sure of the significance to spiritual life!

I've never seen nor heard a book make a claim. I've seen and heard plenty of people make claims.

You are not well read and no more!.. and judging from the quotes you used to question the Quran upon you joining our forum, I can tell which sites too.. I would like to know if it is still considered free thought when another brand of herd adheres to it?

Thanks for dropping in.

I have had better!

All the best,
Faysal

Indeed..

P.S-- it is now possible to legally change your name.. can't think of anything worse than getting the Muslim stigma (through name or looks) while not actually being a Muslim...

all the best

[CosmicPathos]

Well you can, it just requires a detour. It's time for a role reversal. Muslims engaged in this thread can remain Muslims. I will play the role of a believer.

To Yahya Sulaiman, naidamar, justify, and other Muslims

I propose to you, that the god Chaos, creator of the universe, exists. She gave birth to Gaia, Eros, and Nyx. Gaia later gave birth to Uranus, who she eventually married, and through Tethys then Clymene we come to brothers Epimetheus and Prometheus who created the creatures of the earth. Prometheus being jealous and clever stole fire from Zeus to give it to his favorite creation (Man). We celebrate that act to this day by symbolizing that journey at the start of every Olympic game (summer and winter).

Saturn, the roman counterpart to Cronus (Greek), was the god of agriculture and harvest. Upon the instructions of his mother (Terra/Gaea), he castrated his father and became the ruler of the universe, eventually bringing the golden age to Rome. We celebrate his rule each year with the Feast of Saturnalia which is held every year at the Winter Solstice. We even honor him each week by naming the seventh day after him (Saturday).

I presume you believe that no god(s) exist(s) other than Allah. Can you provide sufficient evidence to me that these gods do not or did not exist?

All the best,

Faysal

Those gods have features of created beings (human-like especially when giving "birth?"). Hence they cannot be my gods or anyone's gods (even if someone deluded human believes that). There you go. Those "gods" could have existed in history as animals/humans, I wish I could care. They, very well, could not have existed. I do not care about providing evidence for their existence or not as it does not really matter. The evidence that they were not gods is dang clear though.

By the way, you do not need to tell us again and again that you are a murtad/mulhid/zindeeq. I, actually, do not like that you still retain the name of a Muslim culture while you flushed that Muslim belief down the drain. You might argue that Faisal is a secular name and has nothing to do with Islam. You might be right. But you are clearly trying to identify yourself with Muslim laity by using that name. Get rid of it.

Very coherent and logical arguments by br Yahya and Sr Gossamer. The Muslim laymen, who are not much into philosophy etc, can also listen to br Hamza Andreas Tzortzis on youtube.

[Justufy]

Well you can, it just requires a detour. It's time for a role reversal. Muslims engaged in this thread can remain Muslims. I will play the role of a believer.

To Yahya Sulaiman, naidamar, justify, and other Muslims

I propose to you, that the god Chaos, creator of the universe, exists. She gave birth to Gaia, Eros, and Nyx. Gaia later gave birth to Uranus, who she eventually married, and through Tethys then Clymene we come to brothers Epimetheus and Prometheus who created the creatures of the earth. Prometheus being jealous and clever stole fire from Zeus to give it to his favorite creation (Man). We celebrate that act to this day by symbolizing that journey at the start of every Olympic game (summer and winter).

Saturn, the roman counterpart to Cronus (Greek), was the god of agriculture and harvest. Upon the instructions of his mother (Terra/Gaea), he castrated his father and became the ruler of the universe, eventually bringing the golden age to Rome. We celebrate his rule each year with the Feast of Saturnalia which is held every year at the Winter Solstice. We even honor him each week by naming the seventh day after him (Saturday).

I presume you believe that no god(s) exist(s) other than Allah. Can you provide sufficient evidence to me that these gods do not or did not exist?

All the best,

Faysal

Well you miss the point, the evidence we are providing here is for our God, and not for any other Gods, thats simple enough? all of the arguments that have been advanced are for this one God, and not for chronos or gaia or whatever Diety.

Its very clear and simple, if you want to bring evidence of chronos as by his attributes well go ahead and provide some, among the things you will have to prove is that he ate his children and lived under the earth... Il let you do the rest.

Il be looking foward to hearing from that...

[Justufy]

a couple of those were indeed fun to read, homer was a delight.. I fail to glean any moral/social/religious/after life meaning from them..

can you tell the difference between life as you live it and a movie? can you tell the difference between science and science fiction? can you tell the difference between real medicine and quackery? can you tell the difference between mythology and history? can you tell the difference between a book that claims to be from God and a Greek poem by a Greek poet describing rural life?

I'll have to assume some level of intelligence here (I don't know why I like the benefit of the doubt) if you are going to engage in such a debate, carry yourself to a level, you only insult yourself with a wikpedia article and a half assed attempt to turn this around! (see my previous reply to aamir) in fact the note I closed with there, should be the one I close with here too!


all the best

I don’t think we will make any progress with these people; they seemed stuck in this weird world view, I think that it’s not so much because they don't believe in God but because they dislike him with all their hearts.
Atheism is Just an Emotional Crutch for these people
By denying God one can avoid having to face him. Atheism, then, offers an easy way out for those unable to deal with the reality of life with God.

I guess there will always be people like this, for which there is no shortage of hellfire to accommodate.

[Trumble]

Atheism is Just an Emotional Crutch for these people
By denying God one can avoid having to face him. Atheism, then, offers an easy way out for those unable to deal with the reality of life with God.

No. The atheist just differs on which view is the emotional crutch; and suggests that belief in God anyway offers an easy way out for those unable to deal with the realities of a life where no such entity exists.

As the two positions are obviously totally irreconcilable, there seems little point in pursuing the matter further. At least the theist can console him or herself with the thought that if they are wrong, they'll never know!

[CosmicPathos]

No. The atheist just differs on which view is the emotional crutch; and suggests that belief in God anyway offers an easy way out for those unable to deal with the realities of a life where no such entity exists.

As the two positions are obviously totally irreconcilable, there seems little point in pursuing the matter further. At least the theist can console him or herself with the thought that if they are wrong, they'll never know!

On the contrary, belief in a God despite all the trials one goes through highlights that it is not the easy way out for a believer. Hence your conclusion is extremely fallacious. On the other hand, coming to a conclusion after suffering pain and trials that God does not exist is the easy way out. Even after coming to a conclusion, one does not get rid of those trials and then tries to justify it "thats how life is."

[Justufy]

No. The atheist just differs on which view is the emotional crutch; and suggests that belief in God anyway offers an easy way out for those unable to deal with the realities of a life where no such entity exists.

As the two positions are obviously totally irreconcilable, there seems little point in pursuing the matter further. At least the theist can console him or herself with the thought that if they are wrong, they'll never know!

You, on the other hand can also find solace in the tought that if you were wrong all along you'l know for sure! now you keep telling yourself that.

[CosmicPathos]

No. The atheist just differs on which view is the emotional crutch; and suggests that belief in God anyway offers an easy way out for those unable to deal with the realities of a life where no such entity exists.

As the two positions are obviously totally irreconcilable, there seems little point in pursuing the matter further. At least the theist can console him or herself with the thought that if they are wrong, they'll never know!

Being a Buddhist, I assume you do not believe in a God/gods and the existence of soul. How do you, however, explain the plethora of gods and pantheon of gods that have existed in historical Buddhism? I can go into more details if you want me to. So were those gods/goddesses just humans with no supernatural powers that have been incorporated into the Buddhist religious literature? In order to attract followers of Hinduism? Or could be that when Hindus converted to Buddhism, they brought with them the incarnation and other baggage into Buddhist literature? Ashoka for example is one such king whose dominion resulted in many "conversions."

[Justufy]

Being a Buddhist, I assume you do not believe in a God/gods and the existence of soul. How do you, however, explain the plethora of gods and pantheon of gods that have existed in historical Buddhism? I can go into more details if you want me to. So were those gods/goddesses just humans with no supernatural powers that have been incorporated into the Buddhist religious literature? In order to attract followers of Hinduism? Or could be that when Hindus converted to Buddhism, they brought with them the incarnation and other baggage into Buddhist literature? Ashoka for example is one such king whose dominion resulted in many "conversions."

I guess why he/she/it fancies itself a buddhist is because it thinks that it is more elegant to be labeled a buddhist rather than an atheist or etc.

[CosmicPathos]

I guess why he/she/it fancies itself a buddhist is because it thinks that it is more elegant to be labeled a buddhist rather than an atheist or etc.

Could be. But if he/she is looking for an easy way out, it would be atheism and not buddhism. Buddhists have a strict code by which they live their life. They cant enjoy their physical desires because they believe it will only lead to suffering. It is sort of a rebellion against nature itself. Nature dictates that human body needs xyz amount of food to properly function. These guys are not as extreme as Jains but if Buddhists had it their way, they would practice extreme renunciation too because desire for food leads to suffering. So they sort of follow the "middle path" as Gautama Buddha was born in the midst of two extreme philosophies: Hinduism and Jainism. He developed his own well known "middle path." Seeking mukti (as Hindus did), said the Buddha, also leads to suffering. Seeking impermanence when it does not exist is foolish, according to the Enlightened one.

I argue that even seeking nirvana is a desire. This desire itself is a path to suffering. Seeking and working to extinguish karmic energies is just another desire, very much like the desire to attain mukti. Hence, suffering is inevitable. A buddhist deludes himself into believing that he can overcome suffering by killing his karmic energies.

[tetsujin]

Those gods have features of created beings (human-like especially when giving "birth?"). Hence they cannot be my gods or anyone's gods (even if someone deluded human believes that). There you go. Those "gods" could have existed in history as animals/humans, I wish I could care. They, very well, could not have existed. I do not care about providing evidence for their existence or not as it does not really matter. The evidence that they were not gods is dang clear though.

I wasn't asking for evidence that they do exist, I was aking for evidence that they don't exist. So far all I have heard is; "it is obvious", "it doesn't conform to what I believe", and "those gods are fictional". None of those statements amount to any evidence. By the way, comparisons to Harry Potter are quite offensive. Please don't call others deluded, that's not the way to move forward.

By the way, you do not need to tell us again and again that you are a murtad/mulhid/zindeeq. I, actually, do not like that you still retain the name of a Muslim culture while you flushed that Muslim belief down the drain. You might argue that Faisal is a secular name and has nothing to do with Islam. You might be right. But you are clearly trying to identify yourself with Muslim laity by using that name. Get rid of it.

If you like I could change the world view indicator (see left) from atheist to agnostic, or other. If that comforts you. It was the name I was given, I happen to like it, and I intend to keep it.

Very coherent and logical arguments by br Yahya and Sr Gossamer.

I must have missed it. Sr Gossamer is intent on proving that the same set of arguments apply for other gods but not hers. I haven't read a logical reason as to why. It's also odd that the other side keeps insisting on social values, religious practices, and moral pronouncements. This is interesting because I'm not aware as to how they would objectively critique those attributes of a religion. Would that be based on the personal beliefs or would that be based on Islamic teachings? Keeping in mind I didn't propose a religion, I proposed the existence of those gods.

Well you miss the point, the evidence we are providing here is for our God, and not for any other Gods, thats simple enough? all of the arguments that have been advanced are for this one God, and not for chronos or gaia or whatever Diety.

I haven't heard an argumnt on this thread that would would be less fruitful for proving the existence of any other god.

Its very clear and simple, if you want to bring evidence of chronos as by his attributes well go ahead and provide some, among the things you will have to prove is that he ate his children and lived under the earth... Il let you do the rest.

No sir, you've actually done all the work already by answering your own demands.

Like I said the absence of evidence is not proof of the non existence of God here or anything for that matter, rather it’s the evidence against a claim that is.

.... In an other example: If I am a stock broker and I give you a number of reasons to invest your money in the stock market, and these reasons seem unconvincing to you, it in no way follows that the stock market won’t go up... or that it’s going to go down! So the arguments for God’s existence could all fail and it would not follow that God does not exist.

Do you follow how this works?

I'm following. I'm all ears.


All the best,


Faysal

[CosmicPathos]

I wasn't asking for evidence that they do exist, I was aking for evidence that they don't exist. So far all I have heard is; "it is obvious", "it doesn't conform to what I believe", and "those gods are fictional". None of those statements amount to any evidence. By the way, comparisons to Harry Potter are quite offensive. Please don't call others deluded, that's not the way to move forward.



If you like I could change the world view indicator (see left) from atheist to agnostic, or other. If that comforts you. It was the name I was given, I happen to like it, and I intend to keep it.



I must have missed it. Sr Gossamer is intent on proving that the same set of arguments apply for other gods but not hers. I haven't read a logical reason as to why. It's also odd that the other side keeps insisting on social values, religious practices, and moral pronouncements. This is interesting because I'm not aware as to how they would objectively critique those attributes of a religion. Would that be based on the personal beliefs or would that be based on Islamic teachings? Keeping in mind I didn't propose a religion, I proposed the existence of those gods.




I haven't heard an argumnt on this thread that would would be less fruitful for proving the existence of any other god.




No sir, you've actually done all the work already by answering your own demands.



I'm following. I'm all ears.


All the best,


Faysal

Those gods do not exist because they are like created beings. That is evidence enough. Gods cannot be liked created things.

Lets take it one step ahead. Lets replace "gods" in that statement with "humans" and you can see clearly there is nothing godly about those actions. Whether they do not exist, how do I tell a person in a remote village in Punjab that Faysal the Zindeeq does not exist.

[جوري]

This debate is so silly..
but amusing nonetheless..

how does the god of harvest get along with the sun god.. do they work in concert to bring about harvest? how does the water god get along with the fire god? or the war god get along with the god of love?
Do we have records of how well they get along?

23: 91 Never did God take unto Himself any offspring,52 nor has there ever been any deity side by side with Him: [for, had there been any,] lo! each deity would surely have stood apart [from the others] in whatever it had created,53 and they would surely have [tried to] overcome one another! Limitless in His glory is God, [far] above anything that men may devise by way of definition.54

[IAmZamzam]

And yet you provide no alternate means for making the point. I have to question if you understand it or if you are too blinded by being offended by the examples used to see it. If you can make it in some other way, as I said before, that'd be great. We can then show people the point and not offend them. Otherwise, theists will just have to grow a thicker skin.

The one needlessly striking blows against the skin is the offending party for doing so, not the one having the blows struck upon him for not having calloused enough skin not to mind it. And for the umpteenth time: it’s your job to decide how to phrase your own points, not mine, and just because I take issue with the way you’re doing it doesn’t mean that it’s my own duty to do your own work for you and provide the alternative and I've proved some point of yours if I refuse to do so. If you really can’t think of any other way on your own to make your point which does not do something involving, or tantamount to, comparing someone’s deeply held religious beliefs to children’s fairy tale creatures, you’re either too lacking in imagination or just plain too far past ordinary sensibilities and avoidance of callousness to be helped. I’m not going to repeat this again. I'm tired of having to say it.

Atheists have been told by theists for centuries now that they deserve eternal torture (hell) for not believing in these gods, something the theists clearly endorse (they say their God demands this and they stand by their God as just and good). Now theists can't handle having their gods compared to unicorns in order to make a point, a point which I'm not aware of another way to make?

Have I ever told you that? Stop thinking in this “us and them” mentality where we’re two monolithic groups with the whole representing the one. If you properly understood Islamic doctrine then you’d know that it teaches that God d-a-m-n-s people only over their intentions and what’s in their hearts (several ahadith) and does not punish them just for mere mistakes (Koran 2:286), rather than the literal fact of their outward belief, and therefore an atheist isn’t necessarily d-a-m-n-e-d. And that hell isn't necessarily eternal anyway. Not that it matters here to begin with since what you’re saying just boils down to the infantile defense of a child yelling, “WELL HE STARTED IT!”

Well you can, it just requires a detour. It's time for a role reversal. Muslims engaged in this thread can remain Muslims. I will play the role of a believer.

To Yahya Sulaiman, naidamar, justify, and other Muslims

I propose to you, that the god Chaos, creator of the universe, exists. She gave birth to Gaia, Eros, and Nyx. Gaia later gave birth to Uranus, who she eventually married, and through Tethys then Clymene we come to brothers Epimetheus and Prometheus who created the creatures of the earth. Prometheus being jealous and clever stole fire from Zeus to give it to his favorite creation (Man). We celebrate that act to this day by symbolizing that journey at the start of every Olympic game (summer and winter).

Saturn, the roman counterpart to Cronus (Greek), was the god of agriculture and harvest. Upon the instructions of his mother (Terra/Gaea), he castrated his father and became the ruler of the universe, eventually bringing the golden age to Rome. We celebrate his rule each year with the Feast of Saturnalia which is held every year at the Winter Solstice. We even honor him each week by naming the seventh day after him (Saturday).

I presume you believe that no god(s) exist(s) other than Allah. Can you provide sufficient evidence to me that these gods do not or did not exist

Unbelievable: you even admit to it being nothing more than a detour and you still expect me to indulge your evasive diversions. Last time I checked, this thread was about whether theism was true period, not any particular kind of theism. If you want to start a thread about polytheism vs. monotheism or the ancient Greco-Roman religious beliefs vs. ours or whatever, do it someplace else where it will be on topic and relevant.

I also suggest all of you who have responded to him since he made this post stop humoring him too in the meantime.

“Atheism is Just an Emotional Crutch for these people
By denying God one can avoid having to face him. Atheism, then, offers an easy way out for those unable to deal with the reality of life with God.”

No. The atheist just differs on which view is the emotional crutch; and suggests that belief in God anyway offers an easy way out for those unable to deal with the realities of a life where no such entity exists. As the two positions are obviously totally irreconcilable, there seems little point in pursuing the matter further. At least the theist can console him or herself with the thought that if they are wrong, they'll never know!

So one stereotype and presumption of virtual mind-reading is better than another? Your own certainly doesn’t apply to me. I need my religion as a crutch no more than I need a third elbow on my nose. I could definitely face life if I didn’t believe in God—and for a long time I did, and had little to no problem with it, and changed my mind about it only for intellectual reasons which very gradually dawned on me and which I subjected to careful consideration. In fact, you could say there are perhaps even now times when atheism would make for a better crutch for me in some ways, yet I still reject it out of self-honesty.

I've never seen nor heard a book make a claim [to be from God].

Then you’ve either never read the Koran or haven’t read it thoroughly enough. It repeatedly makes that claim.

[tetsujin]

Unbelievable: you even admit to it being nothing more than a detour and you still expect me to indulge your evasive diversions. Last time I checked, this thread was about whether theism was true period, not any particular kind of theism. If you want to start a thread about polytheism vs. monotheism or the ancient Greco-Roman religious beliefs vs. ours or whatever, do it someplace else where it will be on topic and relevant.

de⋅tour  [dee-toor, di-toor]
–noun
1. a roundabout or circuitous way or course, esp. one used temporarily when the main route is closed.

The thread is still about whether theism is true. You’ve demonstrated that non-theists cannot make direct comparisons to your deity, and we can't present your angle to you (as it would appear to us) to try and share an analogous perspective?

Apparently the only thing evitable is a sincere conversation.

It doesn’t matter what deity is chosen, as long as it is possible to hold a belief about that deity it would serve as an example. The comparison isn’t for the sake of debasing or comparing Islam; it’s a matter of understanding belief itself and the claims made for god(s).

1) Muslims believe that there is no god but Allah. (a claim which needs to be proven, but I’d let you have that one for now)

2) Many theists seem to agree that the burden of proof is on the non-believer

3) I posit a list of gods (a short list of genealogy and significance), and asked theists to objectively disprove the existence of aforementioned gods.

Fair enough? Or does one necessarily need to evoke circular logic to defend revealed truths?

Then you’ve either never read the Koran or haven’t read it thoroughly enough. It repeatedly makes that claim.

I guess so...

Sorry. The Koran is a book. A book only has markings interpreted as words and phrases. You would be the one claiming they have any significance to yourself or others. The book is simply a medium of communication, and if you choose to believe the message was sent by god that’s your prerogative.

Yes, I’ve read it. The Koran by and large assumes god exists, it is a book written for believers and doesn’t spend much time trying to convince anyone of the truth.


All the best,

Faysal

[Trumble]

Being a Buddhist, I assume you do not believe in a God/gods and the existence of soul.

You assume correctly.

How do you, however, explain the plethora of gods and pantheon of gods that have existed in historical Buddhism? I can go into more details if you want me to. So were those gods/goddesses just humans with no supernatural powers that have been incorporated into the Buddhist religious literature? In order to attract followers of Hinduism? Or could be that when Hindus converted to Buddhism, they brought with them the incarnation and other baggage into Buddhist literature? Ashoka for example is one such king whose dominion resulted in many "conversions."

'Historical Buddhism' covers an immense amound of ground, very little of which is remotely relevant to this thread. There is certainly some element of truth in "they brought with them the incarnation and other baggage into Buddhist literature", as it later would be for Tibetans, Chinese and others but 'literature' and the biliefs of individuals should not be confused with 'Buddhism', at least as far as there is one 'Buddhism'. The most important references to gods, particularly in the Tibetan tradition are principally metaphorical.

There is, though, one fundamental distinction between all and any gods and other supernatural beings that appear somewhere in the Buddhist tradition and the Abrahamic God, they are subject to exactly the same laws of cause and effect as we are. For the purposes of this debate it actually makes little difference if they are 'real' or not (just as with invisible unicorns!) unless you or I can prove they do not!

Could be. But if he/she is looking for an easy way out, it would be atheism and not buddhism. Buddhists have a strict code by which they live their life. They cant enjoy their physical desires because they believe it will only lead to suffering. It is sort of a rebellion against nature itself. Nature dictates that human body needs xyz amount of food to properly function. These guys are not as extreme as Jains but if Buddhists had it their way, they would practice extreme renunciation too because desire for food leads to suffering.

Not really. It is not enjoyment of physical pleasure that leads to suffering but clinging on to that enjoyment, hence desiring it and actively seeking more of it. In the same way clinging on to anything, all things being impermanent, must ultimately cause suffering, including attachment to an illusory permanent soul, 'self' or ego.

I fail to see why eating the right amount of food should be considered a 'rebellion against nature' while, presumably, gorging to excess is not! Buddhists generally do 'have it their way', there being nothing to stop them, and few see a need for the extreme austerity you suggest. The 'Middle Way' is just that.

I argue that even seeking nirvana is a desire. This desire itself is a path to suffering. Seeking and working to extinguish karmic energies is just another desire, very much like the desire to attain mukti.

You 'argue' it?! Every Buddhist knows it. It is indeed a significant and obvious trap, but it is one that Buddhists have always been perfectly well aware of. Such a desire is necessary as a motivator for 'right' action on the initial path to liberation but the Buddhist recognises it for the tool or prop that it is. Eventually it, too, must be discarded; a common metaphor being a row boat you use to get to the other shore. Once there, you have no further use for it so you let it just drift away, or burn it. Not that that is as easy as it sounds!

Hence, suffering is inevitable. A buddhist deludes himself into believing that he can overcome suffering by killing his karmic energies.

As the above will make clear, those conclusions are unjustified.

All of which is totally off topic, of course.

[aamirsaab]

Okay, presuming I cannot provide a legal or economic or social system based on their teachings, how does that weaken my argument?

You are trying to make a parable to other religions - you need to give me some information for that to actually work.

Also for the sake of argument, let’s assume my gods demand everything contradictory to whatever you currently choose to believe. I’ll give you free reign of this. How does that weaken my argument?

I need specifics. You haven't given me anything to go on but at the same time you want me to decide if this being exists - that's what would weaken your argument.

Still, let's go with what you have said: everything this deity wants is contradictory to Islamic teachings: that means I'm to act like a complete utter jerk to everyone I meet; I can commit all crimes without remorse; there is zero concept of self-control; the deity I have to worship has siblings; negotiations are discouraged - the sword is the only answer.

I'll stop there since by that time in real life I'd stop believing in that deity.

Lets be honest, I haven’t actually made an argument yet, I’ve only proposed these gods exist. I’m also not interested in defining a new religion. I’ve only proposed the existence of these gods.


All the best,

Faysal

You are trying to make a parable to a religion so you can show us religious folk what it is like to choose a path completely different to our current one. Except you haven't given me enough specifics to actually make this a valid parable. Since you were initially addressing muslims about this deity, it would make sense to benchmark your example based on Islam; hence I provided the ''list of demands'' in my last post.

[جوري]

^^ this topic is about God not which religion leads to God.. I don't understand the non-systematic approach.. Do you discuss the finite details of transamination deamniation reactions as per explanation of Katzung vs. wilcox before you sign up for the course? The Atheist game is semantics and creating doubt.. it is really never about the honest approach of why most folks believe in one thing or another.. it is a mind set which they have programmed in a particular fashion as to create the air that they have expend a thought into this.. given the articles we are linked back to are from wiki.. you can see how much expenditure has gone into it, and then waste time further on definitions.. Frankly I am not sure why this entire thread even exists? anymore than I understand why a bunch of heathens like to spend so much time on a religious forum?


:w:

[Pygoscelis]

Those gods have features of created beings

Unbelievable: you even admit to it being nothing more than a detour and you still expect me to indulge your evasive diversions. Last time I checked, this thread was about whether theism was true period, not any particular kind of theism. If you want to start a thread about polytheism vs. monotheism or the ancient Greco-Roman religious beliefs vs. ours or whatever, do it someplace else where it will be on topic and relevant.

See, they still miss the point even if you tame it down and use other Gods. In fact they cry foul. Using other gods isn't allowed. So what is left? We have to use imaginary things that hold some of the same properties as the gods they are claiming. We need invisible unicorns and celestial teapots. :) They demand it.

Harry potter is part of history too.. I am not sure of the significance to spiritual life!

And here they do the same thing, now comparing gods to harry potter.

These gods you have presented have been believed by people just as their god has and these gods have shaped society possibly MORE than their god has, yet they are still blinded from the point being made and won't accept the comparison.

[جوري]

And here they do the same thing, now comparing gods to harry potter.

What does this mean?

These gods you have presented have been believed by people just as their god has and these gods have shaped society possibly MORE than their god has, yet they are still blinded from the point being made and won't accept the comparison.

You haven't presented me with any gods that have shaped any culture in any memorable fashion if the best you can do is proxy you should bother to at least open the pages your pal pasted from wiki?
further, none of you have answered any questions pertaining to these alleged religions. Like how the god of harvest works with the water god and the sun god and the seed gods to give us harvest .. surely you can't create harvest if you can't get along with others gods?... and would the definition of 'god' fit a non-supreme being that has to get permission from others gods.. a little common sense might really take you the distance ..

but if you can't expend it and prefer other crap, may I suggest the next time your brain is about to flatulate that you head for the bathroom.. that is where refuse of all sorts belongs...


all the best

[CosmicPathos]

You assume correctly.



'Historical Buddhism' covers an immense amound of ground, very little of which is remotely relevant to this thread. There is certainly some element of truth in "they brought with them the incarnation and other baggage into Buddhist literature", as it later would be for Tibetans, Chinese and others but 'literature' and the biliefs of individuals should not be confused with 'Buddhism', at least as far as there is one 'Buddhism'. The most important references to gods, particularly in the Tibetan tradition are principally metaphorical.

There is, though, one fundamental distinction between all and any gods and other supernatural beings that appear somewhere in the Buddhist tradition and the Abrahamic God, they are subject to exactly the same laws of cause and effect as we are. For the purposes of this debate it actually makes little difference if they are 'real' or not (just as with invisible unicorns!) unless you or I can prove they do not!



Not really. It is not enjoyment of physical pleasure that leads to suffering but clinging on to that enjoyment, hence desiring it and actively seeking more of it. In the same way clinging on to anything, all things being impermanent, must ultimately cause suffering, including attachment to an illusory permanent soul, 'self' or ego.

I fail to see why eating the right amount of food should be considered a 'rebellion against nature' while, presumably, gorging to excess is not! Buddhists generally do 'have it their way', there being nothing to stop them, and few see a need for the extreme austerity you suggest. The 'Middle Way' is just that.



You 'argue' it?! Every Buddhist knows it. It is indeed a significant and obvious trap, but it is one that Buddhists have always been perfectly well aware of. Such a desire is necessary as a motivator for 'right' action on the initial path to liberation but the Buddhist recognises it for the tool or prop that it is. Eventually it, too, must be discarded; a common metaphor being a row boat you use to get to the other shore. Once there, you have no further use for it so you let it just drift away, or burn it. Not that that is as easy as it sounds!



As the above will make clear, those conclusions are unjustified.

All of which is totally off topic, of course.

Yup I argue. Last time I talked to a young monk, he was not aware that desire for nirvana can also be classified as a desire to seek permanence. maybe he was ill-experienced and had yet much to learn from the masters.

Anyways, of course it is irrelevant to this thread, but it sure as hell is relevant to your life principles? You are posting here, your essence basically, so I can talk about your life principles too, no matter how much chaos it can create in this thread? Anyways.

The concept of illusory permanence is self-contradictory. How can a Buddhist be so sure that what he is seeking is not impermanent? That is nirvana? How can a buddhist be so sure that nothingness is permanent? After all, the illusory permanence of created things came from nothing?

By the way, your Buddha is as dogmatic. Liberation/Enlightenment could ONLY be attained by following his path? Nice.

1. Life as we know it ultimately is or leads to suffering/uneasiness (dukkha) in one way or another.
2- Suffering is caused by craving or attachments to worldly pleasures of all kinds. This is often expressed as a deluded clinging to a certain sense of existence, to selfhood, or to the things or phenomena that we consider the cause of happiness or unhappiness.
3. Suffering ends when craving ends, when one is freed from desire. This is achieved by eliminating all delusion, thereby reaching a liberated state of Enlightenment (bodhi);
4. Reaching this liberated state is achieved by following the path laid out by the Buddha.

[IAmZamzam]

de⋅tour  [dee-toor, di-toor]
–noun
1. a roundabout or circuitous way or course, esp. one used temporarily when the main route is closed.

The thread is still about whether theism is true. You’ve demonstrated that non-theists cannot make direct comparisons to your deity, and we can't present your angle to you (as it would appear to us) to try and share an analogous perspective?

I've demonstrated no such thing.

Apparently the only thing evitable is a sincere conversation.

It doesn’t matter what deity is chosen, as long as it is possible to hold a belief about that deity it would serve as an example. The comparison isn’t for the sake of debasing or comparing Islam; it’s a matter of understanding belief itself and the claims made for god(s).

I never said anything about it being for the sake of debasing or comparing Islam.

1) Muslims believe that there is no god but Allah. (a claim which needs to be proven, but I’d let you have that one for now)

"Allah" and "God" and "Jehovah" are the same word in three different languages. It just means "the Deity in monotheism". Or literally in Arabic, "the [one] god".

2) Many theists seem to agree that the burden of proof is on the non-believer

3) I posit a list of gods (a short list of genealogy and significance), and asked theists to objectively disprove the existence of aforementioned gods.

Did I say anything about the burden of proof? No, you're the one who brought that old Burden of Proof Pushing procedure into this out of nowhere--which just so happens to be the next article I'm planning in my "Atheistic Chestnuts Refuted" series, in which I will show in various ways how the whole thing is a moot point. Jeez you people can be predictable. This jejune "you must disprove the existence of every other god but your own" tactic is among the worst of the worst. One of the most fundamental rules of reasoning is that one does not have to show how other propositions on a subject are wrong in order to show how one's own is right--unless either the other option is the only alternative or else one is still deliberately attempting a process of elimination of that sort, anyway. Another is that a diversion, regardless of further semantics involved, call it what you want--into the issue of competing theories or beliefs instead of discussing the one particular belief in question, accomplishes nothing except evasion at worst and irrelevancy at best. My own article excerpt from earlier, for instance, argued only for the existence of some higher designing power. If we can get through that, then we'll talk about particular characteristics or identity issues involved. I have more excerpts to give regarding that too.

Fair enough? Or does one necessarily need to evoke circular logic to defend revealed truths? I guess so...

What circular logic??? Someone said that they've never read a holy book which claims to be from God, I corrected them that the Koran made that claim. Where did I say that this claim was proof of itself? Huh?

Sorry. The Koran is a book. A book only has markings interpreted as words and phrases. You would be the one claiming they have any significance to yourself or others. The book is simply a medium of communication, and if you choose to believe the message was sent by god that’s your prerogative. Yes, I’ve read it. The Koran by and large assumes god exists, it is a book written for believers and doesn’t spend much time trying to convince anyone of the truth.

First you say that the words and phrases have no inherent significance except what you give to them, then you immediately turn around in the same breath and talk like they do and the ones you read into them are correct. If you really think the Koran assumes all those things and spends little time trying to convince anyone of anything, you really haven't read it thoroughly enough, or else don't remember it well enough. It alone amongst the world's scriptures frequently argues for its doctrines. I suggest you read it again.

[IAmZamzam]

The Atheist game is semantics and creating doubt.. it is really never about the honest approach of why most folks believe in one thing or another.. it is a mind set which they have programmed in a particular fashion as to create the air that they have expend a thought into this...then waste time further on definitions..

Ameen! Very well put.

[CosmicPathos]

Tetsujin said: Sorry. The Koran is a book. A book only has markings interpreted as words and phrases. You would be the one claiming they have any significance to yourself or others. The book is simply a medium of communication, and if you choose to believe the message was sent by god that’s your prerogative. Yes, I’ve read it. The Koran by and large assumes god exists, it is a book written for believers and doesn’t spend much time trying to convince anyone of the truth.


Reply: So a book can have different assumptions? So Quran largely assumes that there is God and then in the remaining small part it tries to establish that assumption by proving that god exists? What are you rambling on here about?

Maybe Koran does not have the proofs that you want. Your demands probably are unreal. I do not blame the quran for failing to meet your demands. I might as well blame you for being unrealistic.

Moreover, your assumption that Quran is written for believers is wrong. Seems you are putting pagans into the believers category.

[IAmZamzam]

See, they still miss the point even if you tame it down and use other Gods. In fact they cry foul. Using other gods isn't allowed. So what is left? We have to use imaginary things that hold some of the same properties as the gods they are claiming. We need invisible unicorns and celestial teapots. They demand it.

You presume in your condescension that we're missing the point. If have so much trouble finding a way to form an analogy which isn't as insulting and condescending as the use of universally disbelieved in pagan deities or magic teapots (and I have no difficulty in believing you have that much trouble not being so insulting and condescending; I've seen it in other spokespeople for atheism a million times before, and in your own behavior a jillion times in this thread), then do what most people would have thought to do long ago and drop the analogy altogether. Try just stating the point literally and categorically if you're so certain we don't get it just because we haven't repeated its meaning back to you due to being preoccupied with our offense at your degrading presentation of it.

[Trumble]

Yup I argue. Last time I talked to a young monk, he was not aware that desire for nirvana can also be classified as a desire to seek permanence. maybe he was ill-experienced and had yet much to learn from the masters.

I'm not surprised he was not aware of that, it being nonsense, but who, exactly, is supposed to have claimed it? It certainly wasn't me.

The concept of illusory permanence is self-contradictory.

Why?

How can a Buddhist be so sure that what he is seeking is not impermanent?

Because extinction, by definition, is permanent.

By the way, your Buddha is as dogmatic. Liberation/Enlightenment could ONLY be attained by following his path? Nice.

.

Each Buddhist sutra traditionally begins with the phrase "Thus have I heard". Perhaps you are suggesting they should all conclude with the phrase.. maybe in 'small print'.. "other ways to Liberation and Enlightenment are available"?

The Buddha taught what he knew by experience worked. As there is certainly an element of faith in accepting those teachings, Buddhists would not find it unreasonable to assume that in so knowing the Buddha would also know if there were any alternatives.. who knows, maybe some that don't involve all that nasty 'rebellion against nature'? As he never mentioned them, we assume there are not... therefore it would hardly be 'nice' to suggest there are. There is no obligation for anyone to follow the Buddhist path; those who find it unpalatable or simply don't believe it makes sense can choose any alternative path they like.

[IAmZamzam]

Wa7abiScientist, you have a good point about the "if everything is impermanent then the impermanence thing is permanent" paradox, but all the same this is off topic and we'd best keep it about God's existence. I suggest you and Trumble start another thread for your discussion.

[CosmicPathos]

I'm not surprised he was not aware of that, it being nonsense, but who, exactly, is supposed to have claimed it? It certainly wasn't me.



Why?



Because extinction, by definition, is permanent.



Each Buddhist sutra traditionally begins with the phrase "Thus have I heard". Perhaps you are suggesting they should all conclude with the phrase.. maybe in 'small print'.. "other ways to Liberation and Enlightenment are available"?

The Buddha taught what he knew by experience worked. As there is certainly an element of faith in accepting those teachings, Buddhists would not find it unreasonable to assume that in so knowing the Buddha would also know if there were any alternatives.. who knows, maybe some that don't involve all that nasty 'rebellion against nature'? As he never mentioned them, we assume there are not... therefore it would hardly be 'nice' to suggest there are. There is no obligation for anyone to follow the Buddhist path; those who find it unpalatable or simply don't believe it makes sense can choose any alternative path they like.

"Because extinction, by definition, is permanent." That's an assumption, not a fact. What extinction are we talking about here? On scientific grounds, a human body is never extinct. It just changes form. From human body to lets say chemicals in the soil? How is that extinction? Maybe Buddha is talking about extinction of a human and not of his essence? But then that is just an incomplete truth and not The Noble Truth.

Yup if Buddhism is so open and encompassing, I would like to see that statement written on the first page of the sutras.

[Trumble]

Try just stating the point literally and categorically if you're so certain we don't get it just because we haven't repeated its meaning back to you due to being preoccupied with our offense at your degrading presentation of it.

Argument by analogy is a perfectly respectable technique in argumentation in it's own right, not an easy alternative to "stating the point literally and catagorically". As in this case, the point can only be made by analogy.. just as in the case of all those 'Watchmaker' arguments it can only be made by analogy.

[IAmZamzam]

Argument by analogy is a perfectly respectable technique in argumentation in it's own right, not an easy alternative to "stating the point literally and catagorically". As in this case, the point can only be made by analogy.. just as in the case of all those 'Watchmaker' arguments it can only be made by analogy.

If by "all those watchmaker arguments" you mean teleological arguments for God's existence then they most certainly can be made without analogy. In fact, when I presented mine on the first page or so of this thread--which everyone is still turning a blind eye to; maybe I'll have to repost it--all I did with my analogies was use them to clarify and elaborate the point, not establish it. That's what analogies are for. If you think any point under the sun can't be made except through analogy, you aren't thinking hard enough. But is it really so hard to come up with one that isn't as offensive as a magic teapot? I suppose I should be thankful that we've gone far enough in this thread without seeing any atheist use the God = Santa Claus one....

[Trumble]

If by "all those watchmaker arguments" you mean teleological arguments for God's existence then they most certainly can be made without analogy.

I mean the subset of teleological arguments for God's existence that, as the name clearly indicates, involve argument by analogy!

If you think any point under the sun can't be made except through analogy, you aren't thinking hard enough.

But can it be made as well? In ethics, particularly, argument by analogy can be very persuasive and particularly helpful in bringing the relevant issues to light. I still see no good reason to cease using it just because your opponent is likely to take offence if you do.

But is it really so hard to come up with one that isn't as offensive as a magic teapot? I suppose I should be thankful that we've gone far enough in this thread without seeing any atheist use the God = Santa Claus one....

A good point, but in practice it seems so. Be it magic teapots, invisible dragons, Santa Claus, or otherwise perfectly respectable Norse Gods, it seems to make little difference! Perhaps it is up to the theists to make a suggestion siutable for universal inclusion in such analogies without causing offence?

[IAmZamzam]

A good point, but in practice it seems so. Be it magic teapots, invisible dragons, Santa Claus, or otherwise perfectly respectable Norse Gods, it seems to make little difference! Perhaps it is up to the theists to make a suggestion siutable for universal inclusion in such analogies without causing offence?

I'm tired of repeating myself on that. If what I've said for pages now hasn't sunk in, tough.

[Pygoscelis]

A good point, but in practice it seems so. Be it magic teapots, invisible dragons, Santa Claus, or otherwise perfectly respectable Norse Gods, it seems to make little difference! Perhaps it is up to the theists to make a suggestion siutable for universal inclusion in such analogies without causing offence?

Perhaps Hindu Gods like Ganesh? They are still worshiped by many, and seem just as fantastic to an outside viewer as magic teapots. But I really don't believe it matters WHAT you use by analogy. It is the point itself that theists find offensive.

[Trumble]

It is the point itself that theists find offensive.

Exactly. Which is why I would be curious to see a suggestion from Yahya, although his last bit of petulance suggests he might be finding it "really that hard" after all!

[tetsujin]

Did I say anything about the burden of proof? No, you're the one who brought that old Burden of Proof Pushing procedure into this out of nowhere--which just so happens to be the next article I'm planning in my "Atheistic Chestnuts Refuted" series, in which I will show in various ways how the whole thing is a moot point. Jeez you people can be predictable.

I didn't point to you specifically, if you read the preceding posts, you will see that the "burden of proof" argument was made before my post.

This jejune "you must disprove the existence of every other god but your own" tactic is among the worst of the worst. One of the most fundamental rules of reasoning is that one does not have to show how other propositions on a subject are wrong in order to show how one's own is right--unless either the other option is the only alternative or else one is still deliberately attempting a process of elimination of that sort, anyway.

Yes, I agree, it is the worst kind of argument. It is like asking for robust evidence for the non-existence of the T-Rex or robust evidence for the non-existence of bridge trolls.

The first pillar of Islam is a sincere declaration of belief. The first part of the Kalimah e Shahada is a positive claim. When you say "I bear witness (testify) that there is no god but Allah...", the same reasoning applies. you are claiming no other gods exist, and you are claiming there is only one god. How would you invite someone to Islam without resorting to that "jejune" mode of thinking?

Another is that a diversion, regardless of further semantics involved, call it what you want--into the issue of competing theories or beliefs instead of discussing the one particular belief in question, accomplishes nothing except evasion at worst and irrelevancy at best. My own article excerpt from earlier, for instance, argued only for the existence of some higher designing power. If we can get through that, then we'll talk about particular characteristics or identity issues involved. I have more excerpts to give regarding that too.

I think you and I are on the same track, perhaps coming from opposite ends. I specifically stated that religion had nothing to do with the proposition, the existence of god is an independent claim and not affected by the form or influence of any religion, unless and until believers insist on the relationship of god and religion.

It is possible to be a theist without having religiously motivated social or economic ideologies. I realize that is hard for the pious Muslim to understand. That is why I said you can hold onto your faith for the sake of the argument, I wasn't asking anyone to think outside of their box.

What circular logic??? Someone said that they've never read a holy book which claims to be from God, I corrected them that the Koran made that claim.

I don't know who that someone is, but I said books do not make claims, people make claims. Someone must have written that book. That book is a medium for the exchange of ideas. If you preceive that message as comming from the book itself and not an author, we need to stop discussing everything else.

It's not a moot point or a semantic triviality. It's a byproduct of fundamental reasoning skills. If you wish to say that book was authored by god, then please say so, and we'll have a point to talk about because now you have made a claim. If you believe that the followers of muhammad wrote that book, then we have a point to talk about, because now you have made a claim. Books do not write themselves.

The bulletin board, the bilboard, the radio station, the television commercial, the internet, the packaging on gum... all of these are mediums to exchange ideas. You should hold their sources accountable, not the medium itself.

Where did I say that this claim was proof of itself? Huh?

Boy am I delighted to read the implication that, by your methods of reasoning, the Koran is not proof of god's existence.

At least we're on the same page. :)

First you say that the words and phrases have no inherent significance except what you give to them, then you immediately turn around in the same breath and talk like they do and the ones you read into them are correct.

I'm so sorry. I'll be delighted to correct myself and say. I claim that it (the Koran) is a book written for believers and doesn't spend much time trying to convince anyone of the truth. :-)

If you really think the Koran assumes all those things and spends little time trying to convince anyone of anything, you really haven't read it thoroughly enough, or else don't remember it well enough. It alone amongst the world's scriptures frequently argues for its doctrines. I suggest you read it.

Repeating a claim, no matter how many times for poetry or symbolism, does not count as making a logical argument. In any case, that discussion is what you would call a diversion.


All the best,


Faysal

[tetsujin]

Reply: So a book can have different assumptions? So Quran largely assumes that there is God and then in the remaining small part it tries to establish that assumption by proving that god exists? What are you rambling on here about?

Maybe Koran does not have the proofs that you want. Your demands probably are unreal. I do not blame the quran for failing to meet your demands. I might as well blame you for being unrealistic.

I'm not blaming the Koran either, and you can blame me all you want. My demands are not of the book, they are of people like yourself. You have the chance to demonstrate that my demands are unreasonable, if that is how you feel.

Moreover, your assumption that Quran is written for believers is wrong. Seems you are putting pagans into the believers category.

I'm sorry, I cannot define the word believer for you. I took the meaning given by the book you claim to follow. It only seems that you haven't opened the good book in a long time.

Al-Baqara, the second Surah begins:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Alif. Lam. Mim.
-This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil).
-Who believe in the Unseen, and establish worship, and spend of that We have bestowed upon them;
-And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter.
-These depend on guidance from their Lord. These are the successful.
-As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not.
-Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.
-And of mankind are some who say: We believe in Allah and the Last Day, when they believe not.
-They think to beguile Allah and those who believe, and they beguile none save themselves; but they perceive not.
-In their hearts is a disease, and Allah increaseth their disease. A painful doom is theirs because they lie.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's try another translation:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Alif, Lam, Mim.
-This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;
-Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what -We have provided for them;
-And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.
-They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.
-As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
-Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).
-Of the people there are some who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day;" but they do not (really) believe.
-Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realise (it) not!
-In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease: And grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


That's the very beginning of the second chapter. The first chapter being a total of 7 verses. So it doesn't take long to get there.

All the best,


Faysal

[Justufy]

I will put it as simply as I can,

If there is no God like the atheists put it then ultimately there can be no right or wrong, and morality is just a construct from the chemicals in our minds and from altruistic behaviour, ultimately it does not matter, it does not matter how many children’s you’ve raped or killed, the poor are dying in the street? Who cares let them die! Every man for himself! Because it matters not. It won’t matter in the end if you lived your live like Hitler or like a saint, it won’t matter how much pain you have caused to fellow men,
they hold that the only reason why people are moral is because they are like a dogs that wont piss on the carpet because they fear punishment, we don’t need earthly punishment to be moral, even if we have no proof of heavenly punishment we believe, and that is the greatness in our faith! To believe without evidence to show true love for God!


Imagine this dialogue with death in the atheistic worldview.

When the just that comes to the end of his life dies Death will come to him and will say '' I don’t give a *** what good you have done in your life if you have done this or that, you’re no better than any random road pancake on the interstate, now get into your box and rot away, just like the only true passage of your silly book said: you are ashes and to ashes you will return!''


And shame to the atheists like trumble and tetsujin that come here in an attempt to support this vile and contemptuous worldview, shame on them for labouring to instigate doubt here and promote a
Worldview that dooms’ even themselves in this equating hopeless reality that they hold as death!


If what you believe is true because in the end it all comes back to the same thing, so why are you here?

[CosmicPathos]

I'm not blaming the Koran either, and you can blame me all you want. My demands are not of the book, they are of people like yourself. You have the chance to demonstrate that my demands are unreasonable, if that is how you feel.



I'm sorry, I cannot define the word believer for you. I took the meaning given by the book you claim to follow. It only seems that you haven't opened the good book in a long time.

Al-Baqara, the second Surah begins:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Alif. Lam. Mim.
-This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil).
-Who believe in the Unseen, and establish worship, and spend of that We have bestowed upon them;
-And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter.
-These depend on guidance from their Lord. These are the successful.
-As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not.
-Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.
-And of mankind are some who say: We believe in Allah and the Last Day, when they believe not.
-They think to beguile Allah and those who believe, and they beguile none save themselves; but they perceive not.
-In their hearts is a disease, and Allah increaseth their disease. A painful doom is theirs because they lie.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's try another translation:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Alif, Lam, Mim.
-This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;
-Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what -We have provided for them;
-And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.
-They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.
-As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
-Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).
-Of the people there are some who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day;" but they do not (really) believe.
-Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realise (it) not!
-In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease: And grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


That's the very beginning of the second chapter. The first chapter being a total of 7 verses. So it doesn't take long to get there.

All the best,


Faysal

Red-herring? You said that Quran is for the believers. On the contrary, Quran addresses the disbelievers and invokes them. That is precisely why many disbelievers became believers after Quran addressed their concerns. If Quran was addressing the believers, and ONLY the believers, why would disbelievers feel that their concerns have been answered? Disbelievers in the context of Quranic definition and actual history are mostly pagans, Christians, Jews and then some atheists here and there who probably argued "how can we be raised up once we are bones ..."


Tetsujin said: Repeating a claim, no matter how many times for poetry or symbolism, does not count as making a logical argument. In any case, that discussion is what you would call a diversion.

Reply: It is an assumption on your part when you say repetitions are devoid of logical arguments. You have to show how any specific Quranic argument is NOT a logical argument.

[CosmicPathos]

I will put it as simply as I can,

If there is no God like the atheists put it then ultimately there can be no right or wrong, and morality is just a construct from the chemicals in our minds and from altruistic behaviour, ultimately it does not matter, it does not matter how many children’s you’ve raped or killed, the poor are dying in the street? Who cares let them die! Every man for himself! Because it matters not. It won’t matter in the end if you lived your live like Hitler or like a saint, it won’t matter how much pain you have caused to fellow men,
they hold that the only reason why people are moral is because they are like a dogs that wont piss on the carpet because they fear punishment, we don’t need earthly punishment to be moral, even if we have no proof of heavenly punishment we believe, and that is the greatness in our faith! To believe without evidence to show true love for God!


Imagine this dialogue with death in the atheistic worldview.

When the just that comes to the end of his life dies Death will come to him and will say '' I don’t give a *** what good you have done in your life if you have done this or that, you’re no better than any random road pancake on the interstate, now get into your box and rot away, just like the only true passage of your silly book said: you are ashes and to ashes you will return!''


And shame to the atheists like trumble and tetsujin that come here in an attempt to support this vile and contemptuous worldview, shame on them for labouring to instigate doubt here and promote a
Worldview that dooms’ even themselves in this equating hopeless reality that they hold as death!


If what you believe is true because in the end it all comes back to the same thing, so why are you here?

I think the possibility of meaninglessness of life in the absence of God does not necessitate inevitability of the anti-thesis of that possibility. It might help the believer to strengthen his faith, but not the disbeliever because the disbeliever is convinced that is just how cruel life is. Just my opinion.

[Pygoscelis]

If there is no God like the atheists put it then ultimately there can be no right or wrong

Religion does not provide morality. It provides obedience. Islam doesn't teach you to be good for the sake of good, it teaches you to submit to the will of Allah.

You have a moral sense independent of your religious dogma that you've coloured it with.

ultimately it does not matter, it does not matter how many children’s you’ve raped or killed, the poor are dying in the street? Who cares let them die!

Would you really be out there raping children if not for your religion? I have too much respect for you to believe that is true.

shame on them for labouring to instigate doubt here and promote a
Worldview that dooms’ even themselves in this equating hopeless reality that they hold as death!

Do you believe that they are out to **** people to hell in some evil conspiracy? Can you not see that they don't believe in such things and speak in earnest? Encouraging people to think for themselves rather than following the claims and commands of others?

[CosmicPathos]

Religion does not provide morality. It provides obedience. Islam doesn't teach you to be good for the sake of good, it teaches you to submit to the will of Allah.

You have a moral sense independent of your religious dogma that you've coloured it with.



Would you really be out there raping children if not for your religion? I have too much respect for you to believe that is true.



Do you believe that they are out to **** people to hell in some evil conspiracy? Can you not see that they don't believe in such things and speak in earnest? Encouraging people to think for themselves rather than following the claims and commands of others?

Think for themselves? Right!

Would you be with your 80 year old mom on her death bed at the expense of your work responsibilities and career goals and ambitions? Without religion, I would not feel the need to waste my time by spending it with a dying person who has no hope to survive.

[Justufy]

Think for themselves? Right!

Would you be with your 80 year old mom on her death bed at the expense of your work responsibilities and career goals and ambitions? Without religion, I would not feel the need to waste my time by spending it with a dying person who has no hope to survive.

Well thats my entire point! if God does not exist anything goes. And we can be selfish beasts.


So screw then dying mother! who cares she will die anyways!

Because in the end it dosen't realy matter! none of it does!

[Justufy]

Would you really be out there raping children if not for your religion? I have too much respect for you to believe that is true.

I never said that people would do this or that if not for their religion, just that it wouldnt matter on the long run.

since we are only organisms on this speck of dust and nothing more, per your view, death will equate everything!

[Justufy]

So why not be merry!!:skeleton::skeleton::skeleton::skeleton:

[CosmicPathos]

haha and then the dude brings in an emotional situation of 'raping the young boys and girls.' Well, it is perfectly moral for a 35 year old, who cannot find pleasure in women of old age, to convince a 10 year old into sexual pleasures. What is wrong with it? Only religion forbids fornication with young children. Your religionless morality is based on what? Just because you would not do it and personally find it reprehensible, you would dictate your personal morality onto someone who does not think like you? Nice, dogmatic ideology.

[Pygoscelis]

Would you be with your 80 year old mom on her death bed at the expense of your work responsibilities and career goals and ambitions? Without religion, I would not feel the need to waste my time by spending it with a dying person who has no hope to survive.

Even if she's your mother and this is the last time you will ever see her? That's cold man. Really cold.

[CosmicPathos]

Even if she's your mother and this is the last time you will ever see her? That's cold man. Really cold.

Should not I be investing my energy and resources that make me and my progeny more fit rather than spending them on a dying person? And why is it cold? Just because you find it "cold," I do not have to find it that way and of course it is not illegal! Yay.

[Justufy]

haha and then the dude brings in an emotional situation of 'raping the young boys and girls.' Well, it is perfectly moral for a 35 year old, who cannot find pleasure in women of old age, to lure a 12 year old into sexual pleasures. What is wrong with it? Only religion forbids fornication with young children. Your religionless morality is based on what? Just because you would not do it and personally find it reprehensible, you would dictate your personal morality onto someone who does not think like you? Nice, dogmatic ideology.

Well the rapist could argue: why not?? It gives me pleasure! I shall do as I please, pygosellis who are you to tell me what to do?


as I shall die and go unpunished in the sweetest of sleeps, for now let me rape It is pleasurable to me!

[titus]

Would you be with your 80 year old mom on her death bed at the expense of your work responsibilities and career goals and ambitions? Without religion, I would not feel the need to waste my time by spending it with a dying person who has no hope to survive.

So, who is the better person:

1) The atheist who spends time with their dying mother because they love her and want her to be happy on her deathbed or...

2) The religious person who is only at their mothers deathbed because they don't want to go to Hell.

Who is the selfish person here? Does doing "good" things only to avoid getting punished make you a better person? It seems to me that your religion is now providing you with a completely selfish reason to do what is right.

Lack of religion does not mean that there is a lack of love or compassion. Don't delude yourself into believing that.

[Justufy]

Even if she's your mother and this is the last time you will ever see her? That's cold man. Really cold.

the atheist could argue.

well who are you to say that thats cold??? I think not, so it isnt! because thats my choice.:skeleton::skeleton::skeleton::skeleton:

[Justufy]

So, who is the better person:

1) The atheist who spends time with their dying mother because they love her and want her to be happy on her deathbed or...

2) The religious person who is only at their mothers deathbed because they don't want to go to Hell.

Who is the selfish person here? Does doing "good" things only to avoid getting punished make you a better person? It seems to me that your religion is now providing you with a completely selfish reason to do what is right.

Lack of religion does not mean that there is a lack of love or compassion. Don't delude yourself into believing that.

Without God there can be no objective moral values.

Everything is relative without God, good and bad does not exist.

[Pygoscelis]

Should not I be investing my energy and resources that make me and my progeny more fit rather than spending them on a dying person? And why is it cold? Just because you find it "cold," I do not have to find it that way and of course it is not illegal! Yay.

I'd hope that you loved your mother and would want to spend some time with her at the end of her life. And if you don't... then I'd find it rather shallow for you to spend time with her just for show or to win a celestial prize.

[Pygoscelis]

Without God there can be no objective moral values.

Everything is relative without God, good and bad does not exist.

How does introducing God create objective moral values?

Isn't religious morality just obedience to God's will? And his subjective decisions on these moral values? (Or in reality the subjective views of those claiming to speak for him?)

[CosmicPathos]

So, who is the better person:

1) The atheist who spends time with their dying mother because they love her and want her to be happy on her deathbed or...

2) The religious person who is only at their mothers deathbed because they don't want to go to Hell.

Who is the selfish person here? Does doing "good" things only to avoid getting punished make you a better person? It seems to me that your religion is now providing you with a completely selfish reason to do what is right.

Lack of religion does not mean that there is a lack of love or compassion. Don't delude yourself into believing that.

What do you mean by better? So now you are classifying people as "good," "better" and "bad" just because some cling to a certain idea and other's dont? I would actually say that the atheist is a bad person who is sitting with his religious mom, she cries, the atheist replies "sorry mom, I wish I could do anything but this is your end, I will never see you again."

And by the way, a religious person would sit beside his mom not because he fears going to hell but because he knows that it is the command of God and that is the most moral thing to do as clarified by his God and he has no option to rebel against his God.

[Justufy]

What do you mean by better? So now you are classifying people as "good," "better" and "bad" just because some cling to a certain idea and other's dont? I would actually say that the atheist is a bad person who is sitting with his religious mom, she cries, the atheist replies "sorry mom, I wish I could do anything but this is your end, I will never see you again."

And by the way, a religious person would sit beside his mom not because he fears going to hell but because he knows that it is the command of God and that is the most moral thing to do as clarified by his God and he has no option to rebel against his God.

And because we genuinely care.

[Justufy]

How does introducing God create objective moral values?

Isn't religious morality just obedience to God's will? And his subjective decisions on these moral values? (Or in reality the subjective views of those claiming to speak for him?)

If you admitt to God then his decisions are wholly good and absolute, if you trust in yourself then your descisions are relative and questionnable.

[titus]

So now you are classifying people as "good," "better" and "bad" just because some cling to a certain idea and other's dont?

Yes, I think a person that truly cares for the mother is a better person than one who does it only for their own gain. Call me crazy.

And no, I didn't say that someone was better than someone else because of ideas they cling to. I was implying that the person can be defined, in my humble opinion, as better than someone else based on their motives.

For example, I would look down upon the person that killed someone in order to rob them, but not on the one that killed in self defense. The motive is the key.

Funnily, religion often says the same thing, because the robber would be punished and the person defending themselves or their family would not.

[Pygoscelis]

And because we genuinely care.

Good to hear one of you finally post that. I was starting to wonder given the above posts.

[CosmicPathos]

I'd hope that you loved your mother and would want to spend some time with her at the end of her life. And if you don't... then I'd find it rather shallow for you to spend time with her just for show or to win a celestial prize.

well I wish I could, but not at the expense of the loss that it could incur (spending money to fly to visit her which I could spend on bettering my health and fitness, taking days off from work, the depression of seeing her die) .... that could really effect me in my struggle to remain fit in this darwinian life. No?

I would rather find it shallow for you to visit her and implicitly let her think that you are young and living. She might get depressed right before her death that she cant rejoice life anymore as her progeny is enjoying. Many possibilities.

[Justufy]

well I wish I could, but not at the expense of the loss that it could incur (spending money to fly to visit her which I could spend on bettering my health and fitness, taking days off from work, the depression of seeing her die) .... that could really effect me in my struggle to remain fit in this darwinian life. No?

sure could, ha! old people.. who needs em? (*sarcasm)

[tetsujin]

Even if religion made people morally superior it would not lend credence to any of it's claims. It could function completely fine as a placebo.

Claiming that a religion holds truth, is not the same as claiming a religion is useful.


All the best,


Faysal

[Pygoscelis]

that could really effect me in my struggle to remain fit in this darwinian life. No?

Why are you all of a sudden concerned about being "fit in this darwinian life"?

Or are you saying that lacking a god belief leads one to this concern?

As a non-believer I can assure you that in my case it really hasn't.

Some atheists don't want to have kids, making themselves genetic dead ends!

Some atheists even adopt and raise the children of others!

[Justufy]

Even if religion made people morally superior it would not lend credence to any of it's claims. It could function completely fine as a placebo.

Claiming that a religion holds truth, is not the same as claiming a religion is useful.


All the best,


Faysal

You see I am claiming both.

1: religion holds truth
2: religion maes people morally superior

[Justufy]

Some atheists don't want to have kids, making themselves genetic dead ends!

Makes perfect sense to me.

[Pygoscelis]

You see I am claiming both.

1: religion holds truth
2: religion maes people morally superior

And I deny both and would like to see your arguments made for either.

[CosmicPathos]

And I deny both and would like to see your arguments made for either.

I would like to see your arguments for both denials too.

[tetsujin]

You see I am claiming both.

1: religion holds truth
2: religion makes people morally superior

Proving the 1st claim would be enough, whether or not moral superiority is achieved.

You really would be better off with providing logical proof for god's existence, then you could get to religion.


All the best,


Faysal

[Pygoscelis]

It is my claim that the abrahamic religions are centred around OBEDIENCE and not morality. And this can be seen in numerous cases where morality and obedience conflict.

Off the top of my head

1. Adam and Eve eat the "fruit of knowledge of good and evil". Before they eat it they have no way of knowing if its "good" to obey God, so this is about obedience, not morality.

2. The ten commandments are suprisingly lacking in moral commands, and suprisingly centred around obedience.

3. The story of Abraham and Isaac directly pits morality against obedience, and obedience wins. The moral way to end that story would be Abraham saying "no lord, I will not kill an innocent child, you have taught me to be more moral" and god saying "very good Abraham, you have passed the test". But instead God is pleased that Abraham was ready to obey God and murder his son.

4. Islam is explicitly about surrendering to God and obeying him.

I fear that people may bury their inate moral compass in religious dogma and enable themselves to do things they wouldn't otherwise do. Dan Dennet is fond of saying "good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but to get good people to do bad things, that takes religion". I'm not sure I'd completely agree (I think there are other things that can also make that leap for you), but he may have the right idea.

[Trumble]

Never mind... :( Some things are best unsaid.

[Eliphaz]

Without God there can be no objective moral values.

Everything is relative without God, good and bad does not exist.

Well the rapist could argue: why not?? It gives me pleasure! I shall do as I please, pygosellis who are you to tell me what to do?

as I shall die and go unpunished in the sweetest of sleeps, for now let me rape It is pleasurable to me!

Well thats my entire point! if God does not exist anything goes. And we can be selfish beasts.

So screw then dying mother! who cares she will die anyways!

Because in the end it dosen't realy matter! none of it does!

Think for themselves? Right!

Would you be with your 80 year old mom on her death bed at the expense of your work responsibilities and career goals and ambitions? Without religion, I would not feel the need to waste my time by spending it with a dying person who has no hope to survive.

Sorry, but I find this really disturbing.

[Justufy]

Never mind... :( Some things are best unsaid.

Especially when what you say is rude, offensive and not welcome here, its better to keep quiet.

you shall agree?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Sorry, but I find this really disturbing.

Absolutely. It demonstrates that (for the people you've quoted at least), obedience is far more important than doing the right thing.

Peace

[Uthman]

It seems that the discussion has moved from talking about the existence of God to discussing whether atheists are actually better than theists.

That's an interesting discussion, but it's for another thread. Not this one.

[IAmZamzam]

I didn't point to you specifically, if you read the preceding posts, you will see that the "burden of proof" argument was made before my post.

It doesn't matter when it was made. Bull is bull, and as you'll see soon enough in that other thread, it's bull.

Yes, I agree, it is the worst kind of argument. It is like asking for robust evidence for the non-existence of the T-Rex or robust evidence for the non-existence of bridge trolls.

The first pillar of Islam is a sincere declaration of belief. The first part of the Kalimah e Shahada is a positive claim. When you say "I bear witness (testify) that there is no god but Allah...", the same reasoning applies. you are claiming no other gods exist, and you are claiming there is only one god. How would you invite someone to Islam without resorting to that "jejune" mode of thinking?

I'll let you know if and when I invite you to Islam. For now I'm going to continue resisting your repeated attempts to divert the topic.

I think you and I are on the same track, perhaps coming from opposite ends. I specifically stated that religion had nothing to do with the proposition, the existence of god is an independent claim and not affected by the form or influence of any religion, unless and until believers insist on the relationship of god and religion.

It is possible to be a theist without having religiously motivated social or economic ideologies. I realize that is hard for the pious Muslim to understand. That is why I said you can hold onto your faith for the sake of the argument, I wasn't asking anyone to think outside of their box.

Wow. Even when you're making a point that's perplexingly irrelevant to the point of a weird non-sequitur, you still manage to make a stereotype!

I don't know who that someone is, but I said books do not make claims, people make claims. Someone must have written that book. That book is a medium for the exchange of ideas. If you preceive that message as comming from the book itself and not an author, we need to stop discussing everything else. It's not a moot point or a semantic triviality. It's a byproduct of fundamental reasoning skills. If you wish to say that book was authored by god, then please say so, and we'll have a point to talk about because now you have made a claim. If you believe that the followers of muhammad wrote that book, then we have a point to talk about, because now you have made a claim. Books do not write themselves. The bulletin board, the bilboard, the radio station, the television commercial, the internet, the packaging on gum... all of these are mediums to exchange ideas. You should hold their sources accountable, not the medium itself.

My claim was a refutation of a claim previously made in this thread that the Koran does not say that it is God-inspired. I pointed out that it does indeed say that. And that's it. That's all I said. Stop trying to build monuments out of anthills.

Boy am I delighted to read the implication that, by your methods of reasoning, the Koran is not proof of god's existence. At least we're on the same page. :)

I say that I wasn't claiming that the Koran's claim of its being God-inspired was proof of itself (as some Christians do with 2 Timothy 3:16) and that automatically means that there is no proof of any kind to be found in it anywhere, in any way, of God's existence?? That particular subset of the issue wasn't even on the table! Work on your reading comprehension skills!

I'm so sorry. I'll be delighted to correct myself and say. I claim that it (the Koran) is a book written for believers and doesn't spend much time trying to convince anyone of the truth. :-) Repeating a claim, no matter how many times for poetry or symbolism, does not count as making a logical argument. In any case, that discussion is what you would call a diversion.

Again, work on your reading comprehension skills. I urge you very strongly to read the book again and this time pay attention to its arguments. And stop acting as though I've said things I haven't said, like that its repetitions amount to argumentation.

[Trumble]

Especially when what you say is rude, offensive and not welcome here, its better to keep quiet.

you shall agree?

I try not to be rude and offensive, even when deserved - which is why I deleted something that certainly was. I have no regard for your opinion of what is or is not welcome here. If anything I post is unsuitable, no doubt the moderators will remove it.

[IAmZamzam]

Religion does not provide morality. It provides obedience. Islam doesn't teach you to be good for the sake of good, it teaches you to submit to the will of Allah.

That's rather a moot point when a religion subscribes to Divine Command Theory in the first place, wherein morality is synonymous with conformity to the higher law of the Higher Power, which in many ways only stands to reason, though that would take us off track, because...

Message for everyone: As valid as the Moral Argument for God's Existence is, it tends not to be effective all the same--at least when not presented by the very most superb of presenters, which we may not have here: if you want a superb presentation, read the first few chapters of Mere Christianity, the only chapters worth reading (I refuted much of the rest of the book in this thread), which was so effective that when even Dan Barker attempted refuting it--and he's one of the best atheistic debaters (d-a-m-n-ing with faint praise), a few of his counter-arguments were misrepresentations or diversions and most were just things Lewis had already responded to in the text. Anyway, the Moral Argument, valid as it is, tends to be ineffective when most amateurs present it for three reasons: (1) because it leads to situations like the one we have here, (2) because like the disease it is absolute cultural relativism has infected the human race in such a worldwide epidemic that now even religious people often tend to have their minds utterly closed to the ideas that there is any remote trace of anything inherent or universal in us of morality, and (3) because morality is a more abstract thing with less tangible evidence to point to than matters of teleology or cosmology or what not. I suggest we shift gears. In fact, since it was so overlooked....

[IAmZamzam]

Let me try my hand at this again; here's something (admittedly a very heavily edited version of a quite excerpted portion from an extremely rough draft of a work in progress--I hope the ellipses don't make it too choppy) from the book on Islam I'm writing:

Consider what [“the forces of nature”] do to the world. They give it mechanism, organization, structure, intricacy, and what is generally seen as beauty. In other words, all their operationally defining characteristics are the marks of design. Think of a Rubix Cube. It may not be easy to solve the puzzle of precisely how the whole thing works but you can still observe with much ease that it is a designed thing. Its main characteristics are mechanism, organization, structure, intricacy, and (color-based) aesthetics. Would a Rubix Cube have simply happened to come to be somehow if no intelligent being had made it? So it is with the world, as far as we can observe. Do its laws or “forces” not provide it with a great degree of organization and structure by their mere existence? Is the world not intricate? Everyone knows it is, even the infant who has got a single glimpse out of the nursery room window. Are not many things in the way the world works—the hydrological cycle, for example—not mechanism of a sort? Is there not what most would agree is beauty in the world’s rich, lush verdure, gorgeous mountains, dazzling rivers and cataracts, and wondrous colorful caves? There might not be much meaning to any of these characteristics if they were alone (I have found that many people posing teleological theistic arguments make too singular a focus on intricacy) but they all coexist…

Think of the arts—any of them. A painter makes a painting with the use of the three primary colors (blue, yellow, and red), using and combining them in different ways to make his intricate, organized, aesthetic work of design. An author uses the three types of sentences (statements, questions, and commands) to do the same thing when constructing a story. So it is with a composer of music using the three building blocks and shaping tools for the music (rhythm, melody, and lyrics), or an architect with his ceilings, walls and floors. So it is with gravity, the strong nuclear force, and the electro-weak force. They combine with each other in different patterns to produce the world with the same characteristics. Experience teaches us that they could not were there not an Artist behind them…

I hear…all the time from atheists…the appeal to natural selection, an example of the self-negating idea of order from chaos, used as evidence against the notion of the world having been designed. Of what use is this argument when one could at least as easily use it as evidence of the opposite position? To start with the premise that natural selection happens because of impersonal or random things instead of being part of an ultimate purpose, and then use that premise on which to build an argument against the existence of that ultimate purpose, is to form yet one more bit of atheistic circular reasoning…

The agnostic philosopher Bertrand Russell raised objections of his own the better part of a century ago and they are still paralleled or parroted by nontheists everywhere. These objections come from Russell’s famous essay “Why I Am Not a Christian”, in which he spends much less time on the subject of Christianity than the principal subject of God’s existence. He said on the subject of the world’s design by natural law, “Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced...You no longer have the sort of Natural Law that you had in the Newtonian system, where, for some reason that nobody could understand, nature behaved in a uniform fashion…Where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find that they are much less subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance. There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design. The laws of nature are of that sort as regards to a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes the whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was.”

Do you see what Russell’s doing here, dear reader? He’s trying to explain one kind of law (the laws of physics) by appealing to another kind of law (the laws of mathematics). That just brings us back to square one. It’s yet more nontheistic circular reasoning at worst and utter futility at best. The material world itself offers no more actual explanation for the existence of the mathematical laws (or rather the realities they’re describing) than it does for the physical ones. I would respond to Russell with his own words from the same essay:

“It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu’s view, that the world rested upon an elephant, and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, ‘How about the tortoise?’ the Indian said, ‘Suppose we change the subject.’ The argument is really no better than that.”

On the subject of design by law Russell continues, “You are then faced with the question, Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others? If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted.”…If God exists then by He is a supernatural Being, which means that He is not a part of nature but beyond it. Natural law, by definition, applies to nature. So of course the train of natural law ends before God: how could it not when it’s only natural law? Were God to be subject to any sort of law, it would be a supernatural law, not a natural one, and we have no reason to believe there is any supernatural equivalent to natural law.

But by far the weakest argument Russell makes is: “If you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is merely a flash in the pan; it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions and temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending—something dead, cold, and lifeless.” Will a Rubix Cube last forever? Do paintings not peel, fade, decay? Does the paper on which literature, scripts and poetry are written not peel, fade, decay? Do great works of architecture not eventually fall apart? Do the sounds produced by the instruments of a band not dwindle into silence? Come now! Whether or not something is designed has nothing whatsoever to do with its transience…

In his essay “A Designer Universe?” [Scott] Weinberg admits, “I’d guess that if we were to see the hand of the designer anywhere, it would be in the fundamental principles, the final laws of nature, the book of rules that govern all natural phenomena.” But then he adds: “We don’t know the final laws yet, but as far as we have been able to see, they are utterly impersonal and quite without any special role for life.” Without any special role for life? What, then, do you call the laws making this planet form into the only one of its kind within interminable and uncrossable gulfs, if not altogether anywhere? What do you call the laws which keep this planet spinning in orbit in just the rate we need upon it if we are to remain on it and be graced by cool winds without which our weather would fall apart? Or keeping the earth in an orbit rather than allowing it to drift too close to the sun? What do you call the laws causing living things to grow and thrive? No special role for life indeed! Here’s an exercise, dear reader: walk around outside for just an hour and see how many instances you can spot of physical laws having special roles in our living…

The atheistic scholar Kai Nielsen objects to the concept of design in the world by saying that were the world to be designed via its laws, it would not be like it is today but instead would be more like the growth of vegetation or fungus—another mere assertion. The only way that Nielsen’s argument could work is if the kind of growth in question were a natural mark of design, like the marks I listed in the previous section—but that’s not the case, now is it? Is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel a vegetation-or-fungus-like growth? Is a computer a vegetation-or-fungus-like-growth? Is a Parcheesi board a vegetation-or-fungus-like-growth?

Once more, this is quite an edited excerpt; considering the predictability of atheistic counter-argumentation, though, I'm sure any responses I'll hear to it which aren't covered above will be from the parts I put ellipses over or am already planning for the "atheistic chestnuts refuted" series. So let's hear it.

[Trumble]

I hear…all the time from atheists…the appeal to natural selection, an example of the self-negating idea of order from chaos, used as evidence against the notion of the world having been designed. Of what use is this argument when one could at least as easily use it as evidence of the opposite position? To start with the premise that natural selection happens because of impersonal or random things instead of being part of an ultimate purpose, and then use that premise on which to build an argument against the existence of that ultimate purpose, is to form yet one more bit of atheistic circular reasoning…

It is not 'circular reasoning' at all. The significance of evolution by natural selection to the atheistic argument is simply that it provides a naturalistic explanation of how many events that might otherwise be assumed the consequence of deliberate design by God or gods might occur without such deliberate design. The fact that it could be argued that the evolution mechanism could itself be the product of design doesn't affect that utility in the slightest unless, of course, the theist can prove that it is.

I fully agree that evolution by natural selection could theoretically be a designed process, indeed such an extremely elegant designed process compared with the alternatives suggested by creationists (and creation myths) it never ceases to amaze me why so many theists are so quick to dismiss it! To adopt the theistic counter you suggest necessitates accepting that evolution by natural selection exists. As a considerable number of those participating on the theist side of such debates resolutely refuse to do so, that alone makes it a worthwhile addition to the atheistic armory!

[Pygoscelis]

That's a lot of text for what is essentially the watchmaker argument. Could you not cut all that down to one or two paragraphs?

[Pygoscelis]

Greetings,


Absolutely. It demonstrates that (for the people you've quoted at least), obedience is far more important than doing the right thing.

Peace

It is disturbing because it demonstrates sociopathy. But I think it is imagined sociopathy and not that the above posters truly are sociopaths. They have just buried their inate moral compass so far beneath religious dogma that they no longer recognize that it is there (absent of the religions they have layered over it). I will bet that if these people lost their religion they would suddenly refind the compass itself.

[IAmZamzam]

It is not 'circular reasoning' at all. The significance of evolution by natural selection to the atheistic argument is simply that it provides a naturalistic explanation of how many events that might otherwise be assumed the consequence of deliberate design by God or gods might occur without such deliberate design. The fact that it could be argued that the evolution mechanism could itself be the product of design doesn't affect that utility in the slightest unless, of course, the theist can prove that it is.

I fully agree that evolution by natural selection could theoretically be a designed process, indeed such an extremely elegant designed process compared with the alternatives suggested by creationists (and creation myths) it never ceases to amaze me why so many theists are so quick to dismiss it! To adopt the theistic counter you suggest necessitates accepting that evolution by natural selection exists. As a considerable number of those participating on the theist side of such debates resolutely refuse to do so, that alone makes it a worthwhile addition to the atheistic armory!

My head spins at the fallacies. It's too much. I'm going to have to break this down bit by bit or I'll lose track. Probably I'll still miss several mistakes of yours. My mind is like a doorway with too many people trying to walk through it at once.

It is not 'circular reasoning' at all. The significance of evolution by natural selection to the atheistic argument is simply that it provides a naturalistic explanation of how many events that might otherwise be assumed the consequence of deliberate design by God or gods might occur without such deliberate design. The fact that it could be argued that the evolution mechanism could itself be the product of design doesn't affect that utility in the slightest unless, of course, the theist can prove that it is.

It's a naturalistic non-explanation since it assumes the lack of design behind it, and that's what makes it circular. In fact, you're doing the same thing right there in that quote! If your only way out of it is the Burden of Proof Pushing tactic, that's a sad case indeed. But all in good time. Not to mention how the whole evolutionary aspect of it all is just one tiny fraction of the possible signs anyway--or rather only one symptom of their marks--which makes, once again, the whole thing a diversion or incomplete answer to begin with.

I fully agree that evolution by natural selection could theoretically be a designed process

Then why don't you call yourself an agnostic?!

indeed such an extremely elegant designed process compared with the alternatives suggested by creationists (and creation myths) it never ceases to amaze me why so many theists are so quick to dismiss it! To adopt the theistic counter you suggest necessitates accepting that evolution by natural selection exists. As a considerable number of those participating on the theist side of such debates resolutely refuse to do so, that alone makes it a worthwhile addition to the atheistic armory!

Since when did this become about Young Earth Creationism? Whether young earth or old earth, design is design. That part of my article was merely a refutation of one of the many common counters, showing how by their own logic, whether or not their natural selection premise of it is true, they fail, hoisted on their own petard with their own circular reasoning. Don't even think about attempting another diversion with a question about whether or not I believe in evolution: I'm sick of the subject after discussing it till I'm blue in the face on a billion occasions at the Understanding Islam board and it has no bearing whatsoever here. Whether young earth or old earth, design is design. And what in all of tarnation does elegance have to do with anything??!!

[IAmZamzam]

That's a lot of text for what is essentially the watchmaker argument. Could you not cut all that down to one or two paragraphs?

No. Especially since you've made it clear with your remark that you're just going to yawn it off as the same old same old despite it containing refutations of many of the same old same old counters used against it you don't get in many presentations of teleological arguments. Not to mention that if you'd read it thoroughly then you'd know it was essentially the argument from natural law (my version of it, anyway), whereas Paley's watchmaker argument is a more generic teleological argument. Be less lazy and go to the trouble of reading a few paragraphs (or if you already have, reading them more cautiously). You might be surprised. Even if you're not, you'll still at least have more knowledge of what you're scoffing at.

[tango92]

lets look at one of Allahs proofs - his messengers

consider that hundreds of people pop up around the globe all at completely time periods to one another, with language barriers, all with one common belief and message. There is only one god.

i couldnt believe it when i found out hinduism was a monotheistic faith or that the bible taught belief in one god.there are so many similarities between the bible and quran, one has to wonder was the source the same?
look at zoroastrianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroast...n_of_Zoroaster

that is very near the same as prophet muhammads story. if you ask me zoroaster was a prophet of god.

lets look at the KAPAUKU PAPUANS OF WEST GUINEA. im sure some of you may have heard of them, a tribe recently discovered having had no contact with modern civilisation. But the same fundamental ideas about god as islam

http://www.themodernreligion.com/pro...ry-nation.html

now tell me, do you not think God sent a warner to these people?

so is all this one huge coincidence? perhaps a giant conspiracy? were these prophets all crazy? or the age old argument that every prophet just ripped of the beliefs of his predesessors and repackaged it?

nay how does the truth stand out from falsehood?

[Woodrow]

Proof depends upon several the most important being an agreement as to what are mutually accept measurments and what are mutually accepted tools of measurement.

we can sit here arguing for years about gravity. We can even agree that weight is an indication of gravity. But, if we do not agree on the scale used to measure weight, we have no proof.

so it is with trying to prove the existence of God(swt) to an Atheist. We can offer everything see as proof, but unless we can offer it a measurement the athiest will accept, we are wasting our time and theirs.

[tango92]

"They say: Why hath not an angel been sent down unto him? If We sent down an angel, then the matter would be judged; no further time would be allowed them (for reflection)."
6:8

[Pygoscelis]

Proof depends upon several the most important being an agreement as to what are mutually accept measurments and what are mutually accepted tools of measurement.

we can sit here arguing for years about gravity. We can even agree that weight is an indication of gravity. But, if we do not agree on the scale used to measure weight, we have no proof.

so it is with trying to prove the existence of God(swt) to an Atheist. We can offer everything see as proof, but unless we can offer it a measurement the athiest will accept, we are wasting our time and theirs.

Indeed. But its still fun :)

[Trumble]

My head spins at the fallacies. It's too much. I'm going to have to break this down bit by bit or I'll lose track. Probably I'll still miss several mistakes of yours. My mind is like a doorway with too many people trying to walk through it at once.

Perhaps if you paid rather more attention to what people are actually saying such head spinning might disappear?

It's a naturalistic non-explanation since it assumes the lack of design behind it, and that's what makes it circular.

As I said, it makes no such assumption, nor needs to. The question being open is quite sufficient.

In fact, you're doing the same thing right there in that quote! If your only way out of it is the Burden of Proof Pushing tactic, that's a sad case indeed.

In fact, I am not. No 'way out' is needed, nor is any 'tactic'. Obviously if the theist can prove that evolution by natural selection was designed by God, it is of no use as an argument in favour of atheism. If the theist cannot, it can serve the purpose I described. Simple.

Then why don't you call yourself an agnostic?!

Because we are discussing one argument. There are many others, as you are obviously aware. I do not consider this one a 'killer'. I do consider another to be so.

That part of my article was merely a refutation of one of the many common counters, showing how by their own logic, whether or not their natural selection premise of it is true, they fail, hoisted on their own petard with their own circular reasoning.

If you wish to 'refute' strawmen that's up to you!

Don't even think about attempting another diversion with a question about whether or not I believe in evolution: I'm sick of the subject after discussing it till I'm blue in the face on a billion occasions at the Understanding Islam board and it has no bearing whatsoever here.

The relevance, of course, is blindingly obvious despite your attempt to dodge it. However, in my experience use of the phrase "believe in" in the context of evolution is something of a give-away!

Whether young earth or old earth, design is design. And what in all of tarnation does elegance have to do with anything??!!

The important distinction is not old or young, but event or process. If particular events such as, say, the appearance of a particular species, can be assigned to a natural process there is no reason to assign them to divine intervention. I really can't make that any clearer. As to 'elegance', I am in turn baffled at your bafflement. Would not a perfect creator God always prefer an elegant solution to a clumsy, ad hoc one?! In this case, for example, preferring an evolutionary mechanism that maps out the whole of life throughout the cosmos with no need for further intervention, as opposed to all that messing about with water and clay?

[Woodrow]

Indeed. But its still fun :)

It is also good mental exercise as long as everybody remembers to respond to the statement without attacking the person.

I doubt very many if any atheists would ever become believers in God(swt) because of a thread in a forum, but we can learn a little about each other and come to an understanding that we each have what we consider valid reasons to believe as we do..

It also awakens us to the fact that what one person sees as self evident, is not self evident to everybody. We each need to understand that what one person holds dear is not always accepted by another person and it can not be hammered into the person.

[tetsujin]

It doesn't matter when it was made. Bull is bull, and as you'll see soon enough in that other thread, it's bull.

I fail to see where we disagree.

My claim was a refutation of a claim previously made in this thread that the Koran does not say that it is God-inspired. I pointed out that it does indeed say that. And that's it. That's all I said. Stop trying to build monuments out of anthills.

I think you've gone off track. My argument was in no way related to the content of any book. I'll say it again; books do not write themselves, the author is the one making claims and not the book itself.

I say that I wasn't claiming that the Koran's claim of its being God-inspired was proof of itself (as some Christians do with 2 Timothy 3:16) and that automatically means that there is no proof of any kind to be found in it anywhere, in any way, of God's existence?? That particular subset of the issue wasn't even on the table! Work on your reading comprehension skills!

My responses will not always be tailored to the context of your posts. I may present an idea independent of what you may have written. If you think I haven't addressed your point directly, don't take it personally.

I had assumed you believed that there was some proof of god's existence in the Koran. Given your statement, I had assumed you would not make the same claim in the future. Otherwise, why deny that you are making a claim when all you're waiting for is an opportune moment to make the very same claim? In any case, sorry for the assumption. I shouldn't make your case for you.


All the best,


Faysal

[tetsujin]

Let me try my hand at this again; here's something (admittedly a very heavily edited version of a quite excerpted portion from an extremely rough draft of a work in progress--I hope the ellipses don't make it too choppy) from the book on Islam I'm writing:

No problem.

Consider what [“the forces of nature”] do to the world. They give it mechanism, organization, structure, intricacy, and what is generally seen as beauty. In other words, all their operationally defining characteristics are the marks of design.

You’ve begged the question. The whole point of theological argument is to provide evidence for the ultimate creator, but maybe you’re going to explain it later on.

Think of a Rubix Cube. It may not be easy to solve the puzzle of precisely how the whole thing works but you can still observe with much ease that it is a designed thing. Its main characteristics are mechanism, organization, structure, intricacy, and (color-based) aesthetics. Would a Rubix Cube have simply happened to come to be somehow if no intelligent being had made it?

The Rubik’s cube is organized? I thought that was the whole point?  Granted, We know that a Rubik’s cube is designed because we know when and where and who designed it. Your point is irrelevant.

So it is with the world, as far as we can observe.

You cannot use purposefully designed objects such as watches or paintings as analogues to naturally occurring objects, you are begging the question by having known creators analogous to unknown creators. We know what humans create; the whole point of theological argument is to provide evidence for the ultimate creator, but maybe you’re going to explain it later on.

Do its laws or “forces” not provide it with a great degree of organization and structure by their mere existence? Is the world not intricate? Everyone knows it is, even the infant who has got a single glimpse out of the nursery room window. Are not many things in the way the world works—the hydrological cycle, for example—not mechanism of a sort? Is there not what most would agree is beauty in the world’s rich, lush verdure, gorgeous mountains, dazzling rivers and cataracts, and wondrous colorful caves? There might not be much meaning to any of these characteristics if they were alone (I have found that many people posing teleological theistic arguments make too singular a focus on intricacy) but they all coexist…

Okay, so there appears to be a degree of complexity in the mechanisms of the natural laws. Is that the point?

Think of the arts—any of them. A painter makes a painting with the use of the three primary colors (blue, yellow, and red), using and combining them in different ways to make his intricate, organized, aesthetic work of design. An author uses the three types of sentences (statements, questions, and commands) to do the same thing when constructing a story. So it is with a composer of music using the three building blocks and shaping tools for the music (rhythm, melody, and lyrics), or an architect with his ceilings, walls and floors.

Yes. Artists are creative. Artists create... stuff.

So it is with gravity, the strong nuclear force, and the electro-weak force. They combine with each other in different patterns to produce the world with the same characteristics. Experience teaches us that they could not were there not an Artist behind them…

You cannot use purposefully designed objects such as watches or paintings as analogues to naturally occurring objects, you are begging the question by having known creators analogous to unknown creators. We know what humans create; the whole point of theological argument is to provide evidence for the ultimate creator, but maybe you’re going to explain it later on.

I hear…all the time from atheists…the appeal to natural selection, an example of the self-negating idea of order from chaos, used as evidence against the notion of the world having been designed.

1) Evolution is not an idea of order from chaos.
2) It is not used as evidence against the notion of the world having been designed. That argument was refuted well before evolution by natural selection was accepted.
3) You haven’t provided any evidence that the world was designed. You’ve repeatedly begged the question.

Of what use is this argument when one could at least as easily use it as evidence of the opposite position?

It’s easy if you haven’t understood the theory evolution.

To start with the premise that natural selection happens because of impersonal or random things instead of being part of an ultimate purpose, and then use that premise on which to build an argument against the existence of that ultimate purpose, is to form yet one more bit of atheistic circular reasoning…

The theory of evolution stands with or without the existence of god. The fact that the theory contradicts what you believe does not make it any more atheistic vis-à-vis Islam than any other opposing theory. I have yet to hear a biologist claim that in order for evolution to be true, god must not exist or there must not be a purpose to this world. You’ve strung together multiple unrelated propositions as a singular ideology.

The agnostic philosopher Bertrand Russell raised objections of his own the better part of a century ago and they are still paralleled or parroted by nontheists everywhere. These objections come from Russell’s famous essay “Why I Am Not a Christian”, in which he spends much less time on the subject of Christianity than the principal subject of God’s existence.

It’s quite easy to dispel a religious belief in god if there is no god to believe-in. I’m sure you can grasp that. Get to the heart of the matter.

He said on the subject of the world’s design by natural law, “Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced...You no longer have the sort of Natural Law that you had in the Newtonian system, where, for some reason that nobody could understand, nature behaved in a uniform fashion…

The laws of nature are of that sort as regards to a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes the whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was.”

You’ve really butchered the whole argument, I’ve pasted the section below.

Then there is a very common argument from Natural Law. That was a favorite argument all through the eighteenth century, especially under the influence of Sir Isaac Newton and his cosmogony. People observed the planets going around the sun according to the law of gravitation, and they thought that God had given a behest to these planets to move in that particular fashion, and that was why they did so. That was, of course, a convenient and simple explanation that saved them the trouble of looking any further for any explanation of the law of gravitation. Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced. I do not propose to give you a lecture on the law of gravitation, as interpreted by Einstein, because that again would take some time; at any rate, you no longer have the sort of Natural Law that you had in the Newtonian system, where, for some reason that nobody could understand, nature behaved in a uniform fashion. We now find that a great many things we thought were Natural Laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depth of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature. And a great many things that have been regarded as laws of nature are of that kind. On the other hand, where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find that they are much less subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance. There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design. The laws of nature are of that sort as regards to a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes the whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was. Quite apart from that, which represents the momentary state of science that may change tomorrow, the whole idea that natural laws imply a law-giver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws. Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which way you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and, being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were you are then faced with the question, Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others? If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there was a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate law-giver. In short, this whole argument from natural law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have. I am traveling on in time in my review of these arguments. The arguments that are used for the existence of God change their character as time goes on. They were at first hard intellectual arguments embodying certain quite definite fallacies. As we come to modern times they become less respectable intellectually and more and more affected by a kind of moralizing vagueness.

His original script deals efficiently with your arguments below:

Do you see what Russell’s doing here, dear reader? He’s trying to explain one kind of law (the laws of physics) by appealing to another kind of law (the laws of mathematics). That just brings us back to square one. It’s yet more nontheistic circular reasoning at worst and utter futility at best. The material world itself offers no more actual explanation for the existence of the mathematical laws (or rather the realities they’re describing) than it does for the physical ones. I would respond to Russell with his own words from the same essay: “It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu’s view, that the world rested upon an elephant, and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, ‘How about the tortoise?’ the Indian said, ‘Suppose we change the subject.’ The argument is really no better than that.” On the subject of design by law Russell continues, “You are then faced with the question, Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?

If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted.”…If God exists then by He is a supernatural Being, which means that He is not a part of nature but beyond it. Natural law, by definition, applies to nature. So of course the train of natural law ends before God: how could it not when it’s only natural law? Were God to be subject to any sort of law, it would be a supernatural law, not a natural one, and we have no reason to believe there is any supernatural equivalent to natural law.

But by far the weakest argument Russell makes is: “If you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is merely a flash in the pan; it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions and temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending—something dead, cold, and lifeless.” Will a Rubix Cube last forever? Do paintings not peel, fade, decay? Does the paper on which literature, scripts and poetry are written not peel, fade, decay? Do great works of architecture not eventually fall apart? Do the sounds produced by the instruments of a band not dwindle into silence? Come now! Whether or not something is designed has nothing whatsoever to do with its transience…

Again, you’ve yet to present an argument for design. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

In his essay “A Designer Universe?” [Scott] Weinberg admits, “I’d guess that if we were to see the hand of the designer anywhere, it would be in the fundamental principles, the final laws of nature, the book of rules that govern all natural phenomena.” But then he adds: “We don’t know the final laws yet, but as far as we have been able to see, they are utterly impersonal and quite without any special role for life.” Without any special role for life? What, then, do you call the laws making this planet form into the only one of its kind within interminable and uncrossable gulfs, if not altogether anywhere? What do you call the laws which keep this planet spinning in orbit in just the rate we need upon it if we are to remain on it and be graced by cool winds without which our weather would fall apart? Or keeping the earth in an orbit rather than allowing it to drift too close to the sun? What do you call the laws causing living things to grow and thrive? No special role for life indeed! Here’s an exercise, dear reader: walk around outside for just an hour and see how many instances you can spot of physical laws having special roles in our living… The atheistic scholar Kai Nielsen objects to the concept of design in the world by saying that were the world to be designed via its laws, it would not be like it is today but instead would be more like the growth of vegetation or fungus—another mere assertion. The only way that Nielsen’s argument could work is if the kind of growth in question were a natural mark of design, like the marks I listed in the previous section—but that’s not the case, now is it? Is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel a vegetation-or-fungus-like growth? Is a computer a vegetation-or-fungus-like-growth? Is a Parcheesi board a vegetation-or-fungus-like-growth?

No new arguments presented.

Once more, this is quite an edited excerpt; considering the predictability of atheistic counter-argumentation, though, I'm sure any responses I'll hear to it which aren't covered above will be from the parts I put ellipses over or am already planning for the "atheistic chestnuts refuted" series. So let's hear it.

I didn’t hold typographical errors against you.

All the best,


Faysal

[Ali_008]

Proof depends upon several the most important being an agreement as to what are mutually accept measurments and what are mutually accepted tools of measurement.

we can sit here arguing for years about gravity. We can even agree that weight is an indication of gravity. But, if we do not agree on the scale used to measure weight, we have no proof.

so it is with trying to prove the existence of God(swt) to an Atheist. We can offer everything see as proof, but unless we can offer it a measurement the athiest will accept, we are wasting our time and theirs.

This wholes up the entire thread in nut-shell. What might be the biggest proof for us to believe in God may mean nothing to others. People have received guidance just when they held some earth in their hands which made them recognise the meaning of life and death. On the other hand, there are people who have witnessed miracles right in front of their own eyes but they don't believe in God. The Qur'an clearly addresses such people in the following verse:

And even if We had sent down unto them angels, and the dead had spoken unto them, and We had gathered together all things before their very eyes, they would not have believed, unless Allah willed, but most of them behave ignorantly.

Surah Anam - 6:111

Is he who was dead (without Faith by ignorance and disbelief) and We gave him life (by knowledge and Faith) and set for him a light (of Belief) whereby he can walk amongst men, like him who is in the darkness (of disbelief, polytheism and hypocrisy) from which he can never come out? Thus it is made fair-seeming to the disbelievers that which they used to do.

Surah Anam - 6:122

From my own experience, there are verses in the Qur'an about Hypocrites which I could completely identify with before I started practising Islam. When I read those verses for the first time, I couldn't believe it. Those verses to some extent really did the trick for me but, I'm sure, many won't find them as moving.

[Ramadhan]

Sorry, but I find this really disturbing.

I think your reaction shows that possibility of non existing God is not palatable to even yourself.

[Ramadhan]

And even if We had sent down unto them angels, and the dead had spoken unto them, and We had gathered together all things before their very eyes, they would not have believed, unless Allah willed, but most of them behave ignorantly.

Surah Anam - 6:111

Every time I feel exasperated why the disbelievers are just not willing to accept the truth despite endless evidences and proofs, I always reminded myself of this verse.

Is he who was dead (without Faith by ignorance and disbelief) and We gave him life (by knowledge and Faith) and set for him a light (of Belief) whereby he can walk amongst men, like him who is in the darkness (of disbelief, polytheism and hypocrisy) from which he can never come out? Thus it is made fair-seeming to the disbelievers that which they used to do.

Surah Anam - 6:122

It seems there are two main types of disbelievers:
Those who disbelieve because of ignorance and those who disbelieve because of arrogance. It is safe to say that most of the disbelievers on this board fall into the second type.

From my own experience, there are verses in the Qur'an about Hypocrites which I could completely identify with before I started practising Islam. When I read those verses for the first time, I couldn't believe it. Those verses to some extent really did the trick for me but, I'm sure, many won't find them as moving.

you are not the only one. I was born muslim but spent many years astray :cry: and these two verses are among the verses that opened my mind and heart.

[Ali_008]

Greetings,


Absolutely. It demonstrates that (for the people you've quoted at least), obedience is far more important than doing the right thing.

Peace

I suppose its just about the motivation to do the right thing. The proof that there is this beautiful super-natural being called God who loves you 99 times more than your mother is enough for a believer to stay on the right path. Humans are dumb:p, they always need some motivation to get them off their butt and start working. Whatever ethics there exist in this world today are because of the scriptures which were sent from time to time. The rules and regulations of Planet Earth were made by God. Doing good is something good only and only because God said so. If there was no God then there wouldn't be anything called crime/sin either as whatever crimes/sins exist, they involve pleasing one's self at the expense of something.

you are not the only one. I was born muslim but spent many years astray :cry: and these two verses are among the verses that opened my mind and heart.

I think we should just be thankful to Allah for having blessed us.:statisfie

[titus]

It seems there are two main types of disbelievers:
Those who disbelieve because of ignorance and those who disbelieve because of arrogance. It is safe to say that most of the disbelievers on this board fall into the second type.

I believe that premise is arrogant. To believe that if someone believes different than you then they are either ignorant or full of themselves is a bit arrogant, don't you think?

From what I have gathered from the non-believers on this forum they are quite respectful of the believers. They do disagree with them and their disagreements are what make up threads such as this. After all, if everyone agreed then there would be very little to discuss here.

Such differences in thought should not be taken personally, and such differences in opinion should not be used to look down upon others either. As Woodrow said, the purpose here should be to find out about each other and learn a bit about how each other thinks. Nobody is going to "win" this discussion, and I don't see either side being any more arrogant than the other.

[Eliphaz]

I think your reaction shows that possibility of non existing God is not palatable to even yourself.

No it isn't palatable to me, but not for the reasons you have assumed. I do believe in a God, just not the 'Allah' of the Qur'an, for I do not believe that such a God could have created this universe. As you can see, my reasons for believing in God are different to those of the Justufy and Wa7abiScientist. To them, it is, as simple as God = morality, and without God there is no morality and, more importantly, no reward for moral deeds, and therefore no need to do moral deeds because one is not going to be rewarded for them.

They have just buried their inate moral compass so far beneath religious dogma that they no longer recognize that it is there (absent of the religions they have layered over it). I will bet that if these people lost their religion they would suddenly refind the compass itself.

Precisely, as happened with myself. It is difficult at first because one has relied on religion so long to define morality as opposed to their own intuition. However, after the initial 'shock' of having to think for yourself, you learn to trust that intuition again, instead of looking to scholars, books and quotes to interpret and define for you what a moral life is.

I feel that the God of the Qur'an offers a carrot and stick approach to coerce His followers into doing good deeds, and without that carrot of Paradise or that stick of the Hellfire there is no other real reason from an Abrahamic perspective to do anything selfless. I also feel that the debate over God all too often becomes percieved as a case of Darwinian Atheists vs. Abrahamic Faith, when we need to open our eyes a little bit and realise that there are not just two sides, and that particularly Abrahamic faith does not have a monopoly on the concept of God or morality.

[Ali_008]

Brothers Eliphaz and Pygoscelis
Your arguments are, well, logical and acceptable. The points that you've put forward that there is no need for a religion for one to be good and selfless are valid. Islam has its share of such people. For instance, from the companions of the Prophet(PBUH) himself there were Abu Bakr and Uthman (R.A.), both of whom were very truthful, moral and virtuous people even before the arrival of Islam but before Islam, they were just Abu Bakr and Uthman. The entry of Islam in their hearts made them Abu-Bakr Siddeeq and Uthman Ghani. It just raised them to such unreachable high degrees of Humanity. Siddeeq means a person who is very righteous & very sincere and Ghani is one who is very generous and kind.

Its absolutely fathomable that you can be a good human being without following any religion but whats the use of doing any good when you don't recognise the Creator of all good. Suppose a man has two sons. One is very sincere to him, loves him, respects him, serves him and is always humble with him. The other is totally rebellious, not even acknowledging the fact that he has a father and considers himself to be self-sufficient and a result of a miraculous birth without any parents. When the sincere son does even a small amount of good, the fathers is filled with joy and pride of having such a son whereas when the rebellious one does something good, the father ought to feel bad. The father would feel that his other rebellious son of his has all the kindness in his heart for others and outsiders but not for the one who gave birth to him. It would just grieve the father to see that his son is doing something good but never utters a word of kindness to his own dear Dad. So what good can the other son earn by saddening his father so much. Can there be any deed which this rebellious son would do which will make this father proud without making him sad?

I hope you got the message which I wanted to send through that example.

And Allah is the one who loves us 99 times more than our parents and he is also the Most-Merciful.

[titus]

Interesting analogy Ali, and I understand your point, but my take on it would be a little different.

What if the two boys were raised without a father and only told stories about him. Imagine the two boys are raised to believe that their father is actually an extremely wealthy man who, when the time is right, is going to come back into their lives and give them all his money, but only on the condition that they do good things and that they worship him.

Now, the boys have no proof of this other than what they are told, so one boy believes in this father and the other one does not. The first boy does good things in the hope of gaining wealth, while the other boy is just as good, but not in order to gain the wealth. The second son does not disrespect the father, he simply does not believe he exists.

Now, does the father really exist? Who knows. If he does why does the father feel the need to have his children worship him as a condition for the reward? If the father truly loves the children would he really feel the need to punish one of the sons (despite his good deeds) simply because he did not worship his father?

[Woodrow]

Interesting analogy Ali, and I understand your point, but my take on it would be a little different.

What if the two boys were raised without a father and only told stories about him. Imagine the two boys are raised to believe that their father is actually an extremely wealthy man who, when the time is right, is going to come back into their lives and give them all his money, but only on the condition that they do good things and that they worship him.

Now, the boys have no proof of this other than what they are told, so one boy believes in this father and the other one does not. The first boy does good things in the hope of gaining wealth, while the other boy is just as good, but not in order to gain the wealth. The second son does not disrespect the father, he simply does not believe he exists.

Now, does the father really exist? Who knows. If he does why does the father feel the need to have his children worship him as a condition for the reward? If the father truly loves the children would he really feel the need to punish one of the sons (despite his good deeds) simply because he did not worship his father?

Now, does the father really exist? Who knows. If he does why does the father feel the need to have his children worship him as a condition for the reward? If the father truly loves the children would he really feel the need to punish one of the sons (despite his good deeds) simply because he did not worship his father?

Good analogy, however it is based on the assumption Allaah(swt) has needs. Allaah(swt) does not need our worship. Worship of Allaah(swt) fulfills needs that we have, even needs we are unaware off.

I see worship and obedience as being a priceless gift given to mankind. Once we understand what a great gift it is, we would be fools to refuse to accept it.

[Pygoscelis]

Ali, if the father exists and the son doesn't realize he exists, you'd think the father would change that. Especially if the father is all powerful. If for some reason the father needs to hide himself, only sending some ambiguous postcards that the other brothers argue over what they mean, I don't think he'd be too upset if the one son doesn't believe he's out there. I think he'd be proud anyway. I certainly wouldn't think he'd punish the son with eternal torture. And if he did so... he wouldn't deserve any respect to begin with.

Ali, I do think you are on to something though. I think that in the Abrahamic faiths (not in all religion mind you) authoritarianism is key. You must submit and obey without question and it is seen as a virtue to do so. Its rare that you find a believer in this God who then doesn't go on to say its good to worship and obey him. Many non believers ARE too rebellious to get behind this (and if they go religious they tend to gravitate to other sorts of religion). Had Abraham turned on God and refused to put his son Isaac to death (sacrifice him), they would cheer him whereas the bible would boo him. They would not afford God respect and obedience solely because he created them, they'd need more. They'd need to deem him worthy. Which means they'd need to judge God, to question authority, which is something completely unthinkable, unacceptable and offensive to the authoritarian believers.

And this sort of personality difference does carry over into your analogy (most analogies of humans to gods don't carry over due to God's unlimited power, which humans lack). Should one obey and honor their father simply because he is her father? Should you ever turn against your father? No matter how much wrong he does? Could you come to replace your biological father with an adopted father, who did not create you but who has treated you better? I think these questions may relate to those in the paragraph above.

[titus]

Good analogy, however it is based on the assumption Allaah(swt) has needs. Allaah(swt) does not need our worship.

Would "desires" be a more appropriate word, then?

[Woodrow]

Would "desires" be a more appropriate word, then?

Based on my understanding of the word "desires" I find it to appropriate.

Of course now I have to go back and look at my post and see it it still applies.


It is mean to make me think.I get a headache when I think.

[Ramadhan]

I believe that premise is arrogant. To believe that if someone believes different than you then they are either ignorant or full of themselves is a bit arrogant, don't you think?

you misunderstood.

I say the disbelievers arrogant NOT because they have different beliefs. I could care less if anyone else worship a cow or a cross or money or their own intellect.
I say disbelievers arrogant because despite being created they refuse to acknowledge their creator, and this even after having numerous endless evidences and proofs presented to them that there is the one creator.

example in everyday life:
a normal person would always feel grateful to someone who give them money or presents. a normal person would always feel grateful for life to their mothers who bore them and gave birth and raised them up. Heck, a normal person would even feel deference to their own bosses.

Now what happens if:
a guy was dead, then a particular someone gave life to him, gave him air to breath, gave him sustenance, protect him from dangers, gave him food to eat, gave him shelter, etc etc.
but then this guy totally refuses to thank that particular someone, and not only that, he refuses to even acknowledge that particular someone exists!
Wouldn't you call this guy arrogant?
and that is even an understatement.

[Ramadhan]

No it isn't palatable to me, but not for the reasons you have assumed. I do believe in a God, just not the 'Allah' of the Qur'an, for I do not believe that such a God could have created this universe. As you can see, my reasons for believing in God are different to those of the Justufy and Wa7abiScientist. To them, it is, as simple as God = morality, and without God there is no morality and, more importantly, no reward for moral deeds, and therefore no need to do moral deeds because one is not going to be rewarded for them.

the concept of morality in religion, well in Islam at least, is absolut because it comes from Allah SWT.

while human concept of morality changes with time and regions, at the very least .

What you consider immoral maybe a very moral thing to do for another person, and then how do you reconcile your moral values with others?

[Ali_008]

Interesting analogy Ali, and I understand your point, but my take on it would be a little different.

What if the two boys were raised without a father and only told stories about him. Imagine the two boys are raised to believe that their father is actually an extremely wealthy man who, when the time is right, is going to come back into their lives and give them all his money, but only on the condition that they do good things and that they worship him.

Now, the boys have no proof of this other than what they are told, so one boy believes in this father and the other one does not. The first boy does good things in the hope of gaining wealth, while the other boy is just as good, but not in order to gain the wealth. The second son does not disrespect the father, he simply does not believe he exists.

Now, does the father really exist? Who knows. If he does why does the father feel the need to have his children worship him as a condition for the reward? If the father truly loves the children would he really feel the need to punish one of the sons (despite his good deeds) simply because he did not worship his father?

Firstly, GranPa Woodrow said it right when he said that Allah is independent of all needs.

Coming to you Brother, just look around and you'll see proves everywhere of his existence, you may find not find them convincing though and that's a totally different question. The trees, the mountains, the animals and all that includes nature are proofs of His creation. The absolute symmetry and balance in nature on our dear earth cannot be a result of an accident called the big bang. There definitely is an architect behind all this. It all takes us back to the previous question of what one would consider as a proof or "that bright discovery of faith."

And the analogy, the father just does not show himself to his children, that's the only thing which is missing in this love. Apart from physically coming in front of his kids, the father does each and everything required of him for the good upbringing of those 2 sons. Just like any other father, he wants his children to prosper.

I'd go straight with "Allah" here rather than the example. Allah is the one who sends us sustenance. If He wishes He can hit any part of the world with any kind of disaster like a drought, flood, earthquake etc. Now, Allah does not require anything from us, not even worship. If all the theists in the world, give up their religions and just start having independent lives, its gonna make absolutely zero difference to Allah. He'll remain to be as supreme as ever. He is not a worldly king who needs a kingdom to be called The King. Allah was Allah even before the creation of the heavens and earth and He still had those 99 attributes which are mentioned in the Qur'an and He'll remain the same forever. What we're having a debate over here is about being a good person with/without faith whereas Allah is way above all of us. Just have a look at his attributes in this link. We humans can strive and become good or better but Allah is the best. We're just comparative, He's superlative. The point that I'm trying to stress is His decree of punishment for the unbelievers. Among His attributes are Al-'Adl and Al-Muqsit which mean "The Just." He has decreed the punishment for unbelievers because He's Just and there has to be a difference between those who are thankful to Him for His never-ending blessings and those who are not. Punishing any of us is not gonna increase or decrease His honour. As He states in the following verse:

What can Allah gain by your punishment, if ye are grateful and ye believe?

Surah An-Nisa - 4:147

What I've observed in many people (including some Muslims) is that they think that Allah is a tyrant (Nauzbillah) who has simply imposed His worship on humans which is absolutely not true. If He were a tyrant then He would have seized every wrong-doer right by the throat at the time he's committing sin. Rather he's Al-Ghaffaar, The One who forgives the sins of His slaves time and time again and keeps giving second chances to His slaves. We worship Him not solely because He has asked us to but because He deserves it. No matter how major a deed of humanity we do, we'll never be able to compensate to His blessings or show us our gratitude.

Prophet David (PBUH) once asked Allah to show him His blessings and Allah said "breathe."

Every breath that we take is a blessing from Allah.

Brother, the proofs are everywhere and the matter of reward/punishment is secondary. Primarily, its just about being thankful to HIM and gratitude is a major issue (which atheists lack making them miss out on the COMPLETE goodness).

[Pygoscelis]

The One who forgives the sins of His slaves time and time again and keeps giving second chances to His slaves.

I could never see slavery as a good thing.

[Justufy]

I believe that premise is arrogant. To believe that if someone believes different than you then they are either ignorant or full of themselves is a bit arrogant, don't you think?

From what I have gathered from the non-believers on this forum they are quite respectful of the believers. They do disagree with them and their disagreements are what make up threads such as this. After all, if everyone agreed then there would be very little to discuss here.

Such differences in thought should not be taken personally, and such differences in opinion should not be used to look down upon others either. As Woodrow said, the purpose here should be to find out about each other and learn a bit about how each other thinks. Nobody is going to "win" this discussion, and I don't see either side being any more arrogant than the other.

No No no.. I think the main reason why he said most atheists and so forth are arrogant is because they come here, on an Islamic forum, it’s not an atheist forum or any other kind of forum, it is an Islamic board, so these people come here to post provocative posts.

Heres the argument for the arrogance of non muslim forum members here.


premise 1: There are non muslim members on this board.

premise 2: they are either here to gather information about the Islamic religion or are here to denigrate, preach their own way of thought and try to instigate doubt.

premise 3: all of what they have said is not about knowing the Islamic religion, it is on the contrary opposing many of its principles and attacking core beliefs here on an Islamic board.

Premise 4: therefore the users here have an agenda in mind, and are arrogant to think they can influence anyone here.

[Ali_008]

Ali, if the father exists and the son doesn't realize he exists, you'd think the father would change that. Especially if the father is all powerful. If for some reason the father needs to hide himself, only sending some ambiguous postcards that the other brothers argue over what they mean, I don't think he'd be too upset if the one son doesn't believe he's out there. I think he'd be proud anyway. I certainly wouldn't think he'd punish the son with eternal torture. And if he did so... he wouldn't deserve any respect to begin with.

Ali, I do think you are on to something though. I think that in the Abrahamic faiths (not in all religion mind you) authoritarianism is key. You must submit and obey without question and it is seen as a virtue to do so. Its rare that you find a believer in this God who then doesn't go on to say its good to worship and obey him. Many non believers ARE too rebellious to get behind this (and if they go religious they tend to gravitate to other sorts of religion). Had Abraham turned on God and refused to put his son Isaac to death (sacrifice him), they would cheer him whereas the bible would boo him. They would not afford God respect and obedience solely because he created them, they'd need more. They'd need to deem him worthy. Which means they'd need to judge God, to question authority, which is something completely unthinkable, unacceptable and offensive to the authoritarian believers.

And this sort of personality difference does carry over into your analogy (most analogies of humans to gods don't carry over due to God's unlimited power, which humans lack). Should one obey and honor their father simply because he is her father? Should you ever turn against your father? No matter how much wrong he does? Could you come to replace your biological father with an adopted father, who did not create you but who has treated you better? I think these questions may relate to those in the paragraph above.

Brother, I was not a believer all along. For the first 17-18 years of my life, I was a Muslim just because I had a Muslim name and my family called itself Muslim. There was even when I was really pissed with God whereas I'd hardly do any act of worship to please but slowly I discovered Islam with the help of a couple of friends and I discovered myself. Its not totally about authoritarianism, if it was then we wouldn't be discussing all this here. Rather regardless of the question you put forward, I'd just answer "He's God, worship him and stop asking questions", if it was just authoritarianism. I'm been through the road of atheism to a little extent and I accepted Islam with my own will and wish, I didn't just submit. I asked questions myself and got the answers sometimes through people and articles and a lot of times from within myself.

It would certainly offend believers to read:

They would not afford God respect and obedience solely because he created them, they'd need more. They'd need to deem him worthy. Which means they'd need to judge God.

Well, you see, its not just about creating you but also providing you with all the sustenance and everything in this world which you like. Being thankful for creating me, for the daily bread, for a beautiful family, for eyes to see, for a mouth to eat and even for the laptop which I'm using right now.

Your argument is giving the effect that God has done wrong, I wanna know what that is? He may delay justice or good for a while but that's also for our own benefit in the long, it doesn't make Him bad.

I could never see slavery as a good thing.

That could be because of what we've seen it as in history. It was exploitation by humans. If I give you a knife to cut an apple and you go with it and murder someone, does the blame go onto the knife or me?