Science has a problem with God?

[MMohammed]

"Answer me, please."
"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."
"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"
"No, sir."
"Yet you still believe in him?"
"...yes..."
"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at
the underling.
"According to the rules of empirical, testable,
demonstrable protocol,
science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say
to that, son?
Where is your God now?"
[The student doesn't answer]
"Sit down, please."
The Muslim sits...Defeated.
Another Muslim raises his hand. "Professor, may I
address the class?"
The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Muslim
in the vanguard!
Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to
the gathering."
The
Muslim looks around the room. "Some interesting
points you are making, sir.
Now I've got a question for you. Is there such
thing as heat?"
"Yes," the professor replies. "There's
heat."
"Is there such a thing as cold?"
"Yes, son, there's cold too."
"No, sir, there isn't."
The professor's grin freezes. The room
suddenly goes very cold.
The second Muslim continues. "You can have lots of
heat, even more heat,
super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or
no heat but we don't
have anything called 'cold'.
We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no
heat, but we can't go any further after that.
There is no such thing as
cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than
458 - You see, sir, cold
is only a word we use to describe the absence of
heat. We cannot measure
cold. Heat we can measure in
thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not
the opposite of heat, sir,
just the absence of it."
Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the
classroom.
"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"
"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if
it isn't darkness?
What are you getting at...?"
"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"
"Yes..."
"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something,
it is the absence of
something. You can have low light, normal light,
bright light, flashing
light but if you have no light constantly you have
nothing and it's called
darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to
define the word. In
reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be
able to make darkness
darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a
jar of darker
darkness, professor?"
Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young
effrontery before
him.
This will indeed be a good semester. "Would
you mind telling us what
your point is, young man?"
"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical
premise is flawed to
start with and so your conclusion must be in
error...."
The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare
you...!""
"Sir, may I explain what I mean?" >
The class is all ears.
"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor
makes an admirable effort
to regain control. Suddenly he is affability
itself. He waves his
hand to silence the class, for the student to
continue.
"You are working on the premise of duality," the
Muslim explains. "That for
example there is life and then there's death; a good
God and a bad God.
You are viewing the concept of God as something
finite, something we can
measure.
Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses
electricity and
magnetism but has never seen, much less fully
understood them. To view
death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of
the fact that death
cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not
the opposite of life,
merely the absence of it."
The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the
desk of a neighbor who
has been reading it. "Here is one of the most
disgusting tabloids this
country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as
immorality?"
"Of course there is, now look..."
"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely
the absence of
morality.
Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is
the absence of justice.
Is there such a thing as evil?" The Muslim pauses.
"Isn't evil the absence
of good?"
The professor's face has turned an alarming color.
He is so angry
he is temporarily speechless.
The Muslim continues. "If there is evil in the
world, professor, and we all
agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be
accomplishing a work
through the agency of evil. What is that work, God
is accomplishing? The
Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will,
of our own free will,
choose good over evil."
The professor bridles. "As a philosophical
scientist, I don't vie this
matter as having anything to do with any choice; as
a realist, I absolutely
do not recognize the concept of God or any other
theological factor as
being part of the world equation because God is not
observable."
"I would have thought that the absence of God's
moral code in this world is
probably one of the most observable phenomena
going," the Muslim replies.
"Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it
every week! Tell me,
professor. Do you teach your students that they
evolved from a monkey?"
"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary
process, young man,
yes, of course I do."
"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes,
sir?"
The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth
and gives his student a
silent, stony stare.
"Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the
process of evolution at work
and cannot even prove that this process is an
on-going endeavor, are you
not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a
scientist, but a
priest?"
"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our
philosophical discussion.
Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.
"So you don't accept
God's moral code to do what is righteous?"
"I believe in what is - that's science!"
"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face splits into a
grin.
"Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of
observed phenomena.
Science too is a premise which is flawed..."
"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the
professor splutters.
The class is in uproar.
The Muslim remains standing until the commotion has
subsided.
"To continue the point you were making earlier to
the other student, may I
give you an example of what I mean?"
The professor wisely keeps silent.
The Muslim looks around the room. "Is there anyone
in the class who has
ever seen the professor's brain?". The class breaks
out in laughter.
The Muslim points towards his elderly,
crumbling tutor.
"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the
professor's brain...,
felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the
professor's brain?".
No one appears to have done so.
The Muslim shakes his head sadly.
"It appears no-one here has had any sensory
perception of the professor's
brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of
empirical,
stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I DECLARE
that the professor has no brain."
The class is in chaos.
The Student was none other than..................Mohammed Ali Jinnah..Founder of Pakistan
Using a bit of brain can yourself tell you about the existence of God by using some common sense and not always standing for religious debates :)

[Lynx]

Thanks for posting a straw-man of the atheist position.

[جوري]

Thanks for posting a straw-man of the atheist position.

Thanks for always being the voice of dissent but with no more than a hallow objection!

all the best

[Lynx]

Thanks for always being the voice of dissent but with no more than a hallow objection!

all the best

Well here are some problems with this awful dialogue.

First, the guy who wrote this seems to think that if you take away Justice or Good you end up with Injustice and Evil. This is plainly false if you think about it. Just because something is not good does not imply that something is evil. It can be the case that action x is NEITHER. Similarly, if something is not Just it does not follow that it is unjust; it can be neutral. So action X is not evil by virtue of the fact that it is not good nor is state of affairs Y unjust by virtue that it is not just.

Second, the part about science is ridiculous. No reasonable person, let alone a professor of philosophy, is going to claim that God does not exist because we can't hear him, touch him, see him, smell him, taste him(?). The fact that dialogue set the prof up as someone who only believes in things that can be verifiable by this criteria is clearly a straw man argument against a naturalist/atheist. scientists and the like have no problem believing in things they can;t see as long as they have sufficient secondary evidence. That's why we know atoms exist. The argument that the Prof should have made to avoid the straw-man that is contained in this dialogue is "I don't see any direct evidence for God nor do I see any secondary evidence for God"

So all in all, the first part of this dialogue is just a bad answer to the Problem of Evil. The second part is a clear cut straw-man argument in that no atheist that I have ever met would hold the beliefs that this professor does.

Just to point out, the dialogue is even written in a crappy way. What sort of professor says "how dare you" to a student for saying his premise is flawed? Has this author ever sat in a class? The author is trying too hard to demonize the prof in the dialogue. I mean it's bad enough to give him such a crappy set of arguments but to paint him as jerk too is just a poor attempt to getting readers on the side of the student. And the last bit is hilarious about the Ali Jinnah thing. I don't think Muhammad ali jinnah would quote the Bible...so this should have been edited before being posted. Just looks bad!

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

[Mr.President]

they think that GOD is like a gas that they can test GOD accept GOD lol

they are gonna TEST the creator and accept yes u r the creator WHAT A JOKE !!!!

their hearts are locked !

[kashif.rock]

Stupid Creatures..... they never examine zam zam water ... how they can search god.. :p

[glo]

The idea that a Muslim would quote from the Bible to make his or her argument is indeed quite amusing ... unless Mohammed Ali Jinnah was addressing a predominantly Christian audience and thought his argument might carry more weight if he quoted the Bible? :?

[Ramadhan]

I think this was a made up story, taken from another previous made up story.

But it does not distract from its purpose: to show foolishness of atheists.

[glo]

I think this was a made up story, taken from another previous made up story.

I agree.

But it does not distract from its purpose: to show foolishness of atheists.

I know many atheists, who are good and moral people - and they are anything but foolish.

I think what atheists might lack in their pursuit of exploring the world from the angle of scientific evidence, is an openness to the possibility that God exists.
I have read many arguments by atheists, and - to be honest - I cannot fault them.

Perhaps atheists need to experience God in such a way, that they would become convinced (despite the lack of scientific evidence) that he is real.

I pray that those who do not know God may have a real encounter with him!
I wonder why God does not show himself more clearly to those who don't believe.

[Ramadhan]

I know many atheists, who are good and moral people - and they are anything but foolish.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. By "foolish" here is not their character or morality or whatever, but their argument that God does not exist. their belief and faith that there is no god is foolish.

I think what atheists might lack in their pursuit of exploring the world from the angle of scientific evidence, is an openness to the possibility that God exists.
I have read many arguments by atheists, and - to be honest - I cannot fault them.

I've seen/heard/read all their arguments, and they are faulty and flawed at the basic level.

Perhaps atheists need to experience God in such a way, that they would become convinced (despite the lack of scientific evidence) that he is real.

There is plenty of evidence. Either they come to their senses or God wills his guidance for those people.

I wonder why God does not show himself more clearly to those who don't believe.

I am extremely surprised that you could ever think/say that way. God has provided more than enough signs and proofs.
For the disbelievers, even if God commands the angels to appear on earth, they would still dispute it and find a way to reject.

QS 23:24

But the chiefs of those who disbelieved among his people said: "He is no more than a human being like you, he seeks to make himself superior to you. Had Allah willed, He surely could have sent down angels; never did we hear such a thing among our fathers of old.

QS 41:14

When their messengers came unto them from before them and behind them, saying: Worship none but Allah! they said: If our Lord had willed, He surely would have sent down angels (unto us), so lo! we are disbelievers in that wherewith ye have been sent.

[Missinglinks]

Perhaps atheists need to experience God in such a way, that they would become convinced (despite the lack of scientific evidence) that he is real.

There is no lack of scientific evidence for Allah... in science if something indicates or points toward a "thing", and we see the effects of it, then we don't have to see it to be called "existing", because the effects of it are the evidence of it's existence. Like gravity, we don't see it, but we can feel it.. the fact that we can feel it is one of the evidences of it. We see it's effects(the people don't dive or are hanging in the sky, they can't leave the ground and replace it for the sky). The fact that it we feel and see indirect his effects is the proff that it exists. So we gave some point a value, and measure from that value the things we thinkare gravity, not knowing the true nature of gravity and seeing it as a whole while there might be other things that influence our measurements, not (yet) discovered or still unknown.

Also atoms, has someone ever seen some? Their existence is still a theory, but did you know that if this theory was proven wrong (maybe by a new theory) whole parts of science would callopse and they then have to begin from the beginning building on the new theorie. We don't even see the effects of this atoms... we just suggest that the effects are due to the atoms... see how this theory is even today still on empty air!!!! OPEN YOUR EYES! so most of the arguments of the atheists are based on this.. "we don't see it, it has never been proven"... tehy forget that some or maybe even most of the basic(or fundaments) of the sciences today are never proven, just suggestion wich they agreed upon just to go further. And it is a fact that most of the inventions are even still today by accidents! The only thing what they do when this happens is try to clarify/explain/declare it according to the existing theories... so every fool will then think that it suits, not realising that the theories are constant adjusted to fit and there is a huge "war" between the scholar!

My physics teacher once said to me when we were discusing the trustworthieness of the theories of today. Because I made a joke and said that it might be possible that the theories of today are within a hundred-hundredfifty years a joke to those future people, except a small bit that survives, like most of the theories of the past nations that once were believed to be the absolute truth, "the evidence". He laughed and said: "Actually, we have a black box. We don't know what is inside it. So we fire some bullets through it and we measure with what speed they come out on the other side. We ramble it to hear what is inside it. And do some more things And then make a theory trying to evaluate what is inside this black box wich the content of it is still unknown but given a name and a theory.

Also not to forget.. I also had a disccusion with the my biology teacher... We came to the chapter "evolution" and we also went trough the other theories like creationism and the old theories that are refuted. So I knew that the theorie of Spontaneous generation or Equivocal generation, this theory is saying that there can come something from nothing! And most atheists make a joke about this theorie.... then I said to be sure(of what i remember): "So this theory is refuted and proven to be wrong" my teacher said yes (it is impossible that there comes from nothing something). Then I said, but then evolution is also wrong, since it says that life once came from nothing and not always has existed. And how can come the common ancestor from nothing if we say organism have not always existed, then from where do they come.." I swaer by Allah she was struck as far as I know... She almost cried... subhanAllah they laugh at theories while the same theory is the fundament/basic of their theory where they built on!...


the prophet pbuh once said to an atheist according to our brother Khalid Yassin: "the presence of dawn is the evidence that a camel was here, the footprints in the sand is the evidence that a person was here, and the evidence of the earth and all the planets are proof that the same one or some great power has placed them where they are"

Allah said,

﴿إِنَّ فِى خَلْقِ السَّمَـوَتِ وَالاٌّرْضِ﴾

(Verily, in the creation of the heavens and the Earth,) ﴿3:190﴾, referring to the sky in its height and spaciousness, the earth in its expanse and density, the tremendous features they have of rotating planets, seas, mountains, deserts, trees, plants, fruits, animals, metals and various beneficial colors, scents, tastes and elements.

﴿وَاخْتِلَـفِ اللَّيْلِ وَالنَّهَارِ﴾

(And in the alternation of night and day), as one follows and takes from the length of the other. For instance, at times one of them becomes longer than the other, shorter than the other at times and equal to the other at other times, and the same is repeated again and again, and all this occurs by the decision of the Almighty, Most Wise. This is why Allah said,

﴿لاّيَـتٍ لاٌّوْلِى الاٌّلْبَـبِ﴾

(there are indeed signs for men of understanding), referring to the intelligent and sound minds that contemplate about the true reality of things, unlike the deaf and mute who do not have sound comprehension. Allah said about the latter type,

﴿وَكَأَيِّن مِّن ءَايَةٍ فِى السَّمَـوَتِ وَالاٌّرْضِ يَمُرُّونَ عَلَيْهَا وَهُمْ عَنْهَا مُعْرِضُونَ - وَمَا يُؤْمِنُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ بِاللَّهِ إِلاَّ وَهُمْ مُّشْرِكُونَ ﴾

(And how many a sign in the heavens and the earth they pass by, while they are averse therefrom. And most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners unto Him) ﴿12:105,106

the whole creation points towards a creator...

[Skavau]

MMohammed, if you are going to post that article that I have seen both Christians and Muslims use repeatedly - I suggest you do some formatting on it. It is as bad as a word block.

Anyway, what Lynx said is correct. It is a poor strawman of the atheist position (I have addressed in on other forums) which I will not waste my time with. I have never seen a philosophy professor, much less an atheist one act in such a stupid manner and the 'wisdom' of the theist student is not unique. If it impresses you, you are easily impressed.

[glo]

I am extremely surprised that you could ever think/say that way. God has provided more than enough signs and proofs.
For the disbelievers, even if God commands the angels to appear on earth, they would still dispute it and find a way to reject.

You misunderstand me.
I too see signs and proofs of God's existence - but no matter how convincing I find them, I have to accept and admit that none of those stand up to scientific scrutiny.

I have heard so many believers in God make claims of scientific proof, and yet none of them has ever convinced the atheist community.
Yes, people usually find some 'atheist' or another, who allegedly found scientific proof for the existance of God and became a believer ... but by large atheists remain unimpressed.

The reason I wonder why God doesn't reveal himself more clearly to non-believers, is that there are some atheists very close to my heart and I would like to see nothing more than them accepting the existence of God in their lives!
An atheist friend once said 'If God knows me so well, then he also knows the way I think and feel. If he wants me to believe in him and follow him, why does he not show himself to me in a way which he knows would convince me?'

I think it's a good question. And my prayer is that God will do just that! :)

[MMohammed]

If you don't believe in this Student.
God has kept evil for testing us.Life is a test for us.
If a student who's givin an exam is told what is the correct answer for each question, he will straightaway come first!
If achieving the victory for Jannah was so easy, wouldn't everybody go in Jannah and Hell would have no one inside it!
And if you are talking about any neutral deed, I personally didn't get you!
I'ven't heard of it.Using your common sense, you can deduce that the student is saying that if someone didnt commit any good deed, he has done an evil deed.He is talking about deed and it clearly means that something is done.
And I agree atoms exist and you have a proof for it and the proof for existence of God is given by nature daily.
Who gives us the life?
If even our body formed itself, who gave it the ability to control itself?

[Skavau]

If you don't believe in this Student.
God has kept evil for testing us.Life is a test for us.

I believe in the student as much as I believe in your formatting.

If a student who's givin an exam is told what is the correct answer for each question, he will straightaway come first!
If achieving the victory for Jannah was so easy, wouldn't everybody go in Jannah and Hell would have no one inside it!

This, in front of all of the apologetics I have heard for the suitability of eternal torture and and an all-loving god, has to be the strangest one yet. No-one who fails an examination in real life is told they must be tortured for the rest of their life. No-one who succeeds in an examination in real life is given eternal bliss for the rest of life. Do you even understand the purpose of examinations? The first thing that you might note with every single examination in history is that it is the conclusion, or part of the conclusion of a subject or a course in an educational establishment. Those who participate in an examination have decided to sign up for the course voluntarily.

In the heaven and hell example you present, no-one has agreed to be subject to it, and millions of people who you would claim are failing or are going to fail have even accepted that such an examination even exists. Indeed, the questions in such an 'examination' are not even questions - they are demands for subordinance based on... flimsy evidence (deliberately so in order that there is some balance, as you argue).

In short, your comparison to an examinaton makes no sense. You are saying that there exists a God, that has two destinations in mind for us: heaven or hell. One a utopia, the other pit of torture. Our fate is decided (apparently?) by whether or not we successfully recognise that God is absolute and obeyable. One specific thing of note is that this is not moral. Examinations are not moral tests and you used that as an example. So what exactly are you trying to prove?

I'ven't heard of it.Using your common sense, you can deduce that the student is saying that if someone didnt commit any good deed, he has done an evil deed.He is talking about deed and it clearly means that something is done.

I disagree entirely there. The distinction between 'moral' and 'immoral' is that moral is something which is to be considered a good action. Something that ought to be done, whereas an immoral action is something that should be ought not to be done. Evil is not the absence of good, the absence of good is simply moral neutrality and the absence of evil is simply moral neutrality too.

[Masuma]

Asalamu Alikum Wa Rehamtullahiu Wa Barakatuh!

Well, the OP was quite a funny dialogue;D but it’s just a made-up dialogue, right? I mean it never actually happened as I once received a message from my friend in which it was Albert Einstein talking about the “darkness part”. LOL! :D


I too have encountered many Atheists’ ideologies and reasoning but they fail badly in it. They take science as the ultimate criteria but still they fail to give sufficient and convincing or should I say “SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS” for their widely accepted Evolution theory!:rollseyes


And as brother Missinglinks stated that the Existence of GOD CAN be proved scientifically! Want me to prove it to you Atheists out there…?;D Well I’ll inshAllah do it after my stupid exam is over.:raging:

@ sis glo:

Sis, I too many a times use quotations from the Bible to have a better dialogue with a Christian as many Christians take Bible to be their ultimate criteria!

Different people have different criterias for judging, for instance, Atheists go for science, Christians and Jews go for Bible, Muslims have their Al-Furqan,:statisfie the Quran as the ultimate criteria so the technique is to use those people’s criteria with which you are having dialogue…makes the whole discussion more convincing!

[Masuma]

MMohammed, if you are going to post that article that I have seen both Christians and Muslims use repeatedly -

You forgot to mention "SOME MUSLIMS".
Different Muslims have different way of addressing! :shade:

[MMohammed]

@Skavau. I never compared exams to life.I was just giving you an example.
What I am trying to prove is that everything has its opposite just like there won't be the expression of passion and love without violence(And remember I AM NEVER SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD FIGHT TO EXPRESS LOVE!!) !
What I am clearly trying to say is that God has not wiped out evil so that He can see who involves in it and who does not.Everyone has an equal brain and it depends upon the extent of knowledge, he tries to get.If you sit at home and make decisions, it is wrong.Instead if you go out and see whats happening in the world, that is more wiser(this is an example, do not give me a lecture on it please :p).
On the other hand, fate is not involved in the person's faith.It is the person who chooses the religion after seeing the world.I never said that believe in Allah simultaneously.Its better if you see why Allah is the God.And before arguing with others, as I have previously said, see what is correct before finding the answer for my question.I will not get anything if you will do right, he will be you who will get its reward.

I disagree entirely there. The distinction between 'moral' and 'immoral' is that moral is something which is to be considered a good action. Something that ought to be done, whereas an immoral action is something that should be ought not to be done. Evil is not the absence of good, the absence of good is simply moral neutrality and the absence of evil is simply moral neutrality too.

If you do something, you must be doing something between: Good or Evil.What's the neutral action? Can you explain?

[Skavau]

@Skavau. I never compared exams to life.I was just giving you an example.

You were comparing how an exam works to how heaven & hell function.

If you do something, you must be doing something between: Good or Evil.What's the neutral action? Can you explain?

Eating a bag of crips. It does not hurt anyone, nor does it improve anyone. It is neutral. It is an action that is amoral.

[MMohammed]

I am really not in a mood of debate :(

You were comparing how an exam works to how heaven & hell function.

Never! I was just telling you why evil is there!

Eating a bag of crips. It does not hurt anyone, nor does it improve anyone. It is neutral. It is an action that is amoral.

The professor never even asked about it! His main point was of why did God create evil and that was my response to it! Although yes, I do not completely agree with the Student in this matter.
And an example of neutral action, please :p?

[جوري]

Well here are some problems with this awful dialogue.

I haven't actually read it, I was commenting on your comment for the obvious reason!

First, the guy who wrote this seems to think that if you take away Justice or Good you end up with Injustice and Evil. This is plainly false if you think about it. Just because something is not good does not imply that something is evil. It can be the case that action x is NEITHER. Similarly, if something is not Just it does not follow that it is unjust; it can be neutral. So action X is not evil by virtue of the fact that it is not good nor is state of affairs Y unjust by virtue that it is not just.

It is true not every action has a moral value in it.. but generally if you take justice and good away, then it will leave the two other options, evil or neutrality!

Second, the part about science is ridiculous. No reasonable person, let alone a professor of philosophy, is going to claim that God does not exist because we can't hear him, touch him, see him, smell him, taste him(?). The fact that dialogue set the prof up as someone who only believes in things that can be verifiable by this criteria is clearly a straw man argument against a naturalist/atheist. scientists and the like have no problem believing in things they can;t see as long as they have sufficient secondary evidence. That's why we know atoms exist. The argument that the Prof should have made to avoid the straw-man that is contained in this dialogue is "I don't see any direct evidence for God nor do I see any secondary evidence for God"

I haven't come across a philosophy professor who said that indeed but have come across one history chain smoking teacher who has and at the tender formative years, she'd always remark, 'there is no God' 'what does god have to do with it' just for the mere fact that a student would comment with 'Oh my God'.. so to it is quite possible.. it is a hypothetical your pal skaveau is always smitten with inane hypotheticals and expects everyone to build on his empty premises you can do the same here

So all in all, the first part of this dialogue is just a bad answer to the Problem of Evil. The second part is a clear cut straw-man argument in that no atheist that I have ever met would hold the beliefs that this professor does.

Again, haven't read it will have to go with your words and there is no reason to distrust you!

Just to point out, the dialogue is even written in a crappy way. What sort of professor says "how dare you" to a student for saying his premise is flawed? Has this author ever sat in a class? The author is trying too hard to demonize the prof in the dialogue. I mean it's bad enough to give him such a crappy set of arguments but to paint him as jerk too is just a poor attempt to getting readers on the side of the student. And the last bit is hilarious about the Ali Jinnah thing. I don't think Muhammad ali jinnah would quote the Bible...so this should have been edited before being posted. Just looks bad!

Maybe the story is fictional.. but there are nasty professors and nasty surgeons and nasty meat handlers .. surely you have come across some.. When I first came to the U.S and of course I didn't speak English, and couldn't express myself.. my ESL teacher took my book and threw it at me.. at the time I thought that was normal, but she was fired later and not because of me ( I didn't have enough sense to complain) but I suppose most parents who pay nearly Harvard tuition for a private school expect that their children should be taught without abuse.. so frankly you never know!


I'll have to see the bible quote part, I don't see any reason why Muhammad ali Jinnah couldn't quote the bible? surely there is no law against it?

all the best

[Skavau]

I am really not in a mood of debate :(

Never! I was just telling you why evil is there!

You described it as some sort of balance, and you did use a comparison to examinations. This specifically though, your personal belief on why evil exists was not what I was responding to.

The professor never even asked about it! His main point was of why did God create evil and that was my response to it! Although yes, I do not completely agree with the Student in this matter.
And an example of neutral action, please :p?

The story is fictional. It never happened.

As for your question (again): I've already given you an example. I could decide to eat a bag of crisps. It is a neutral action. If we assume that to decide to do something good could be something to benefit others and to decide to do something bad would be something to harm others then we could conclude that an amoral action would be something that does not concern itself with doing either good or bad. That is what we would call neutral.

By the logic of the clueless student in the article however, it would be evil of me to eat crisps because it would be an absence of good.

[MMohammed]

Oh, How do you know this never happened(although I am not perfectly sure it happened)? You are saying with such a confidence that it seems that you wrote it yourself!
And sorry, I asked for any neutral action's example :(
I understood its meaning longggggggggg beforeee.....:D

[Skavau]

Oh, How do you know this never happened(although I am not perfectly sure it happened)? You are saying with such a confidence that it seems that you wrote it yourself!

It is a myth. Cut and paste any of the text into google and you may see Christians using it and Muslims using it. You do not also get philosophy teachers acting like neo-fascists and yelling at their students like the one in the example did. In fact, no class operates like that.

And sorry, I asked for any neutral action's example :(
I understood its meaning longggggggggg beforeee.....:D

I've already answered that. Twice, now.

[جوري]

philosophy teachers acting like neo-fascists and yelling at their students like the one in the example did. In fact, no class operates like that.
.

Plenty of teachers and classes operate in exactly that way and sometimes in the best of schools, or were you home schooled?
not good to answer an alleged fallacy with another fallacious claim!

all the best

[جوري]

and here is an example of a teacher calling his student a loser:

Rex Roland, a Teacher at Enka Middle School in North Carolina, in Trouble for Calling Student a Loser on her Paper
Rex Roland, who teaches sixth grade at Enka Middle School in Candler, North Carolina, said he was joking when he called one of his students a 'loser' on her paper, but her mother Patty Clement does not see it that way.

She wants Rex Roland to be suspended.
This is not the first time Mr. Roland has called that student a loser either. Back in November he also wrote 'loser' in red ink on the girl's paper and this time he wrote 'minus 20% for being a loser' and then underlined 'loser' twice. ABC has a video report of the story.
Patty Clement complained about the conduct in November when it happened the first time, but now it has happened again, she wants Rex Roland to be suspended.

http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/rex...r-2590157.html

you speak as if professors and teachers are these ordained saints.. surely you can make a point for your case without resorting to even more incorrect reasoning..
you know two fallacious claims will not nullify each other!

all the best

[MMohammed]

Whatever, it is true or not, I have replied to your objection.

I've already answered that. Twice, now.

Sorry, not yet :)
You just indirectly, once more, told me the meaning of "neutral".

[Skavau]

Eating a bag of crisps is a neutral action. I've now said that three times.

[MMohammed]

Ok.You gave me an example.
But the professor wanted to ask what's evil.And I agree that the student should have answered
"Absence of Good is Evil or Neutrality"
not just evil!
But if there is no evil, there is good.He is doing a good action!
What's bad in it? And the antonym for bad is good not neutral!
Either bad or good!
Good actions are not always done for others
He is eating and that's good!

[Skavau]

Ok.You gave me an example.
But the professor wanted to ask what's evil.And I agree that the student should have answered
"Absence of Good is Evil or Neutrality"
not just evil!
But if there is no evil, there is good.He is doing a good action!
What's bad in it? And the antonym for bad is good not neutral!
Either bad or good!
Good actions are not always done for others
He is eating and that's good!

This is just semantics. We firstly, have no reason to believe that 'evil' or 'good' exists (or that it means anything) independently from human affairs, so to objectively declare 'evil' as an absence of good (as if that means anything to the universe) is a meaningless projection of human affairs.

Secondly, there being an 'absence of good' doesn't tell us much about anything really. We can only declare things as 'evil' when we describe what we are referring to. Perhaps not doing anything can be an enabler for evil, but it is not necessarily such or so.

[MMohammed]

You can't get it.You see the word "Good" here as doing better for others or nature.Good is for oneself or others.
And man is innocent.Thats what Islam says.But Satan is the one who whispers evil into the man secretly.So Evil is not committed by ourselves.But as you are an atheist, you wont believe something as Satan.
We will never have the conscience by ourselves.Yet we are shown it.
But what I am talking about is bounded by Good and Evil and does not involve Neutrality.

[Lynx]

I haven't actually read it, I was commenting on your comment for the obvious reason!

It is true not every action has a moral value in it.. but generally if you take justice and good away, then it will leave the two other options, evil or neutrality!

I haven't come across a philosophy professor who said that indeed but have come across one history chain smoking teacher who has and at the tender formative years, she'd always remark, 'there is no God' 'what does god have to do with it' just for the mere fact that a student would comment with 'Oh my God'.. so to it is quite possible.. it is a hypothetical your pal skaveau is always smitten with inane hypotheticals and expects everyone to build on his empty premises you can do the same here

Again, haven't read it will have to go with your words and there is no reason to distrust you!

Maybe the story is fictional.. but there are nasty professors and nasty surgeons and nasty meat handlers .. surely you have come across some.. When I first came to the U.S and of course I didn't speak English, and couldn't express myself.. my ESL teacher took my book and threw it at me.. at the time I thought that was normal, but she was fired later and not because of me ( I didn't have enough sense to complain) but I suppose most parents who pay nearly Harvard tuition for a private school expect that their children should be taught without abuse.. so frankly you never know!


I'll have to see the bible quote part, I don't see any reason why Muhammad ali Jinnah couldn't quote the bible? surely there is no law against it?

all the best

Oh, well in that case you should read it! I think, if anything, it's of comedic value.

Anyway, yeah I guess there are some jerk professors out there (I've been fortunate enough not to encounter any particularly annoying professors) but I meant that this article is clearly made up as I have seen different versions attributed to both famous Christians and famous Muslims. I am going to take a guess that the origin of this article is Christian given the bible quote. But my point was that if it is indeed made up then the author is just demonizing the professor to get the reader to side with the student. Read it and you'll see what I mean; even if the prof is right he is being painted as a jerk and one is tempted to side with the student just because the prof is such an unpleasant guy.

[MMohammed]

^^
It was just an answer to simple questions.I agree that the Professor could ask more questions, but I am *pretty* sure that there will be answers to it!

[Lynx]

^^
It was just an answer to simple questions.I agree that the Professor could ask more questions, but I am *pretty* sure that there will be answers to it!

Every single thing the prof in that article says is stupid & and I will be very surprised to see anyone in reality making any of those awful arguments. I guess the point of this article is just a parody or a joke not meant to be taken as a serious dialogue.

[Missinglinks]

Every single thing the prof in that article says is stupid & and I will be very surprised to see anyone in reality making any of those awful arguments. I guess the point of this article is just a parody or a joke not meant to be taken as a serious dialogue.

Long ago in the city of Baghdad, there was a Muslim empire. On one side of the River Tigris were the royal palaces and on the other side was the city. The Muslims were gathered in the Royal Palace when an athiest approached them. He said to them, ‘I don’t believe in God, there cannot be a God, you cannot hear Him or see Him, you’re wasting your time! Bring me your best debator and I will debate this issue with him.’
The best debator at the time was Imam Abu Hanifah Rahimullah. A messenger from amongst the Muslims was sent over the River Tigris to the city, where Abu Hanifah Rahimullah was, in order to tell him about the athiest who was awaiting him. On crossing the River Tigris, the messenger conveyed the message to Abu Hanifah Rahimullah saying, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, an athiest is waiting for you, to debate you, please come!’ Abu Hanifah Rahimullah told the messeneger that he would be on his way.
The messenger went over the River Tigris once again and to the Royal Palaces, where everyone including the athiest awaited the arrival of Abu Hanifah Rahimullah. It was sunset at the time and one hour had passed, but Abu Hanifah Rahimullah still hadn’t arrived. Another hour had passed, but still there was no sign of him. The Muslims started to become tense and worried about his late arrival. They did not want the athiest to think that they were too scared to debate him, yet they did not want to take up the challenge themselves as Abu Hanifah Rahimullah was the best of Debators from amongst the Muslims. Another hour passed, and suddenly the athiest started laughing and said, ‘ Your best debator is too scared! He knows he’s wrong, he is too frightened to come and debate with me. I gurantee he will not turn up today.’
The Muslims increased in apprehension and eventually it had passed midnight, and the athiest had a smile on his face. The clock ticked on, and finally Abu Hanifah Rahimullah had arrived. The Muslims inquired about his lateness and remarked, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, a messenger sent for you hours ago, and you arrive now, explain your lateness to us.’
Abu Hanifah Rahimullah apologises for his lateness and begins to explain, while the atheist listens to his story.
‘Once the messenger delivered the message to me, I began to make my way to the River Tigris, and on reaching the river bank I realised there was no boat, in order to cross the river. It was getting dark, and I looked around, there was no boat anywhere nor was there a navigator or a sailor in order for me to cross the river to get to the Royal Palaces. I continued to look around for a boat, as I did not want the athiest to think I was running away and did not want to debate with him.
I was standing on the river bank looking for a navigator or a boat when something caught my attention in the middle of the river. I looked forward, and to my amazement I saw planks of wood rising to the surface from the sea bed. I was shocked, amazed, I couldn’t believe what I saw seeing. Ready made planks of wood were rising up to the surface and joining together. They were all the same width and length, I was astounded at what I saw.
I continued to look into the middle of the river, and then I saw nails coming up from the sea floor. They positioned themselves onto the boat and held the planks together, without them being banged. I stood in amazement and thought to myself, ‘Oh Allah, how can this happen, planks of wood rising to the surface by itself, and then nails positioning themselves onto the boat without being banged?’ I could not undertsand what was happening before my eyes.’
The athiest meanwhile was listening with a smile on his face. Abu Hanifah Rahimullah continued, ‘I was still standing on the river bank watching these planks of wood join together with nails. I could see water seeping through the gaps in the wood, and suddenly I saw a sealant appear from the river and it began sealing the gaps without someone having poured it, again I thought, ‘Ya Allah, how is this possible, how can sealant appear and seal the gaps without someone having poured it, and nails appear without someone having banged them.’ I looked closer and I could see a boat forming before my eyes, I stood in amazement and was filled with shock. All of a sudden a sail appeared and I thought to myself, ‘How is this happening, a boat has appeared before my eyes by itself, planks of wood, nails, sealant and now a sail, but how can I use this boat in order to cross the river to the Royal Palaces?’ I stood staring in wonderment and suddenly the boat began to move. It came towards me against the current. It stood floating beside me while I was on the river bank, as if telling me to embark onto it. I went on the boat and yet again it began to move. There was no navigator or sailor on the boat, and the boat began to travel towards the direction of the royal palaces, without anyone having programmed it as to where to go. I could not understand what was happening, and how this boat had formed and was taking me to my destination against the flow of water. The boat eventually reached the other side of the River Tigris and I disembarked. I turned around and the boat had disappeared, and that is why I am late.’
At this moment, the athiest brust out laughing and remarked, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, I heard that you were the best debator from amongst the Muslims, I heard that you were the wisest, the most knowledgable from amongst your people. From seeing you today, I can say that you show none of these qualities. You speak of a boat appearing from nowhere, without someone having built it. Nails positioning themselves without someone having banged them, sealant being poured without someone having poured it, and the boat taking you to your destination without a navigator against the tide, your taking childish, your talking rediculous, I swear I do not belive a word of it!’
Abu Hanifah Rahimullah turned to the athiest and replied, ‘You don’t believe a word of it? You dont believe that nails can appear by themselves? You dont believe sealant can be poured by itself? You dont believe that a boat can move without a navigator, hence you don’t believe that a boat can appear without a boat maker?’
The athiest remarked defiantly, ‘Yes I dont believe a word of it!’
Abu Hanifah Rahimullah replied, ‘If you cannot believe that a boat came into being without a boat maker, than this is only a boat, how can you believe that the whole world, the universe, the stars, the oceans, and the planets came into being without a creator?
The athiest astonished at his reply got up and fled.

[MMohammed]

^^^^
I simply love this story.Thanks for the share!
Allah knows better if this article(which I posted) is true or not.But listen, if your heart is locked up, you can't believe from the greatest proof or dialouge or whatever too!
Seek for Guidance! Seek it yourself! Before verbally fighting with others, I strongly recommend you, argue yourself.
I think Arguments are of no value.If you raise a question, you will get 6 answers and neither of any arguer will believe in his rival or accept his opinion.Believe me! Till it gets your interest, you will never believe him!
I kindly ask you to do this!
Thanks :)

[Skavau]

Long ago in the city of Baghdad, there was a Muslim empire. On one side of the River Tigris were the royal palaces and on the other side was the city. The Muslims were gathered in the Royal Palace when an athiest approached them. He said to them, ‘I don’t believe in God, there cannot be a God, you cannot hear Him or see Him, you’re wasting your time! Bring me your best debator and I will debate this issue with him.’
The best debator at the time was Imam Abu Hanifah Rahimullah. A messenger from amongst the Muslims was sent over the River Tigris to the city, where Abu Hanifah Rahimullah was, in order to tell him about the athiest who was awaiting him. On crossing the River Tigris, the messenger conveyed the message to Abu Hanifah Rahimullah saying, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, an athiest is waiting for you, to debate you, please come!’ Abu Hanifah Rahimullah told the messeneger that he would be on his way.
The messenger went over the River Tigris once again and to the Royal Palaces, where everyone including the athiest awaited the arrival of Abu Hanifah Rahimullah. It was sunset at the time and one hour had passed, but Abu Hanifah Rahimullah still hadn’t arrived. Another hour had passed, but still there was no sign of him. The Muslims started to become tense and worried about his late arrival. They did not want the athiest to think that they were too scared to debate him, yet they did not want to take up the challenge themselves as Abu Hanifah Rahimullah was the best of Debators from amongst the Muslims. Another hour passed, and suddenly the athiest started laughing and said, ‘ Your best debator is too scared! He knows he’s wrong, he is too frightened to come and debate with me. I gurantee he will not turn up today.’
The Muslims increased in apprehension and eventually it had passed midnight, and the athiest had a smile on his face. The clock ticked on, and finally Abu Hanifah Rahimullah had arrived. The Muslims inquired about his lateness and remarked, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, a messenger sent for you hours ago, and you arrive now, explain your lateness to us.’
Abu Hanifah Rahimullah apologises for his lateness and begins to explain, while the atheist listens to his story.
‘Once the messenger delivered the message to me, I began to make my way to the River Tigris, and on reaching the river bank I realised there was no boat, in order to cross the river. It was getting dark, and I looked around, there was no boat anywhere nor was there a navigator or a sailor in order for me to cross the river to get to the Royal Palaces. I continued to look around for a boat, as I did not want the athiest to think I was running away and did not want to debate with him.
I was standing on the river bank looking for a navigator or a boat when something caught my attention in the middle of the river. I looked forward, and to my amazement I saw planks of wood rising to the surface from the sea bed. I was shocked, amazed, I couldn’t believe what I saw seeing. Ready made planks of wood were rising up to the surface and joining together. They were all the same width and length, I was astounded at what I saw.
I continued to look into the middle of the river, and then I saw nails coming up from the sea floor. They positioned themselves onto the boat and held the planks together, without them being banged. I stood in amazement and thought to myself, ‘Oh Allah, how can this happen, planks of wood rising to the surface by itself, and then nails positioning themselves onto the boat without being banged?’ I could not undertsand what was happening before my eyes.’
The athiest meanwhile was listening with a smile on his face. Abu Hanifah Rahimullah continued, ‘I was still standing on the river bank watching these planks of wood join together with nails. I could see water seeping through the gaps in the wood, and suddenly I saw a sealant appear from the river and it began sealing the gaps without someone having poured it, again I thought, ‘Ya Allah, how is this possible, how can sealant appear and seal the gaps without someone having poured it, and nails appear without someone having banged them.’ I looked closer and I could see a boat forming before my eyes, I stood in amazement and was filled with shock. All of a sudden a sail appeared and I thought to myself, ‘How is this happening, a boat has appeared before my eyes by itself, planks of wood, nails, sealant and now a sail, but how can I use this boat in order to cross the river to the Royal Palaces?’ I stood staring in wonderment and suddenly the boat began to move. It came towards me against the current. It stood floating beside me while I was on the river bank, as if telling me to embark onto it. I went on the boat and yet again it began to move. There was no navigator or sailor on the boat, and the boat began to travel towards the direction of the royal palaces, without anyone having programmed it as to where to go. I could not understand what was happening, and how this boat had formed and was taking me to my destination against the flow of water. The boat eventually reached the other side of the River Tigris and I disembarked. I turned around and the boat had disappeared, and that is why I am late.’
At this moment, the athiest brust out laughing and remarked, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, I heard that you were the best debator from amongst the Muslims, I heard that you were the wisest, the most knowledgable from amongst your people. From seeing you today, I can say that you show none of these qualities. You speak of a boat appearing from nowhere, without someone having built it. Nails positioning themselves without someone having banged them, sealant being poured without someone having poured it, and the boat taking you to your destination without a navigator against the tide, your taking childish, your talking rediculous, I swear I do not belive a word of it!’
Abu Hanifah Rahimullah turned to the athiest and replied, ‘You don’t believe a word of it? You dont believe that nails can appear by themselves? You dont believe sealant can be poured by itself? You dont believe that a boat can move without a navigator, hence you don’t believe that a boat can appear without a boat maker?’
The athiest remarked defiantly, ‘Yes I dont believe a word of it!’
Abu Hanifah Rahimullah replied, ‘If you cannot believe that a boat came into being without a boat maker, than this is only a boat, how can you believe that the whole world, the universe, the stars, the oceans, and the planets came into being without a creator?
The athiest astonished at his reply got up and fled.

Spaces between paragraphs. Use them.

In any case, that one circulates the internet as well.

[MMohammed]

In any case, that one circulates the internet as well.

[
If you mean that Christians are using this one too, then you are wrong.I know it from long before and I know its true!

[Masuma]

Alikum Wa Rehmatullahi Wa Barakatuh! :statisfie

@ sis glo:

I have heard so many believers in God make claims of scientific proof, and yet none of them has ever convinced the atheist community.

So? Sis, our job is to only give the “Message”, its acceptance or rejection is the listener’s own choice! Saying the above statement is wrong as only Allah has the power to change hearts. How can you expect a human to make an unbeliever believe, whose heart has already turned to stone???

“Deaf, dumb and blind they are, they would not listen.”

And Allah says in Quran:

“As to those who reject Faith, it is same to them whether thou warn them or not, they will not believe.
Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty that they (incur).”
(Chapter 2, Verses 6 and 7)

So sis, humans can only give the message, they don’t have the power of convincing except by Allah’s will. Haven’t you ever encountered a real stubborn person who would yield to nothing whatsoever?

There are men who do grasp the glimpses of what is truth, but still will not accept it, how can one than convince such people. Also that in many cases, Allah does make our attempts fruitful!

Yes, people usually find some 'atheist' or another, who allegedly found scientific proof for the existance of God and became a believer ... but by large atheists remain unimpressed.

Sis, that’s why we admire those who follow “truth”!:statisfie Otherwise if acceptance of truth would have been that easy, then everyone would have made it directly to Paradise. So here lies the test, if people accept truth, they accept it for themselves, and if they reject it, they do harm to their own souls!


Also that there are only a few people in all the past and present generations in this world who accept the “Right Way”. That is why Allah calls mankind in loss in Surah Al-Asr that man is in loss except those who practice the four commandments of Allah mentioned in that Surah. Very few people relative to the huge population of the world would make it to Paradise as following “the right way” is not a child’s play.

An atheist friend once said 'If God knows me so well, then he also knows the way I think and feel. If he wants me to believe in him and follow him, why does he not show himself to me in a way which he knows would convince me?

“People try to settle the question in their way, and not in Allah’s way. (They say, Oh yes! We’ll believe if Allah do this and this)…(or in this case, why not He show Himself to me in a wa.y which He knows would convince me?)… That will not do. The decision in all questions belongs to Allah.”

Or maybe this can be a better example:

“Well I’ve my exams drawing near and previously I gave a B + result. My teacher really wants me to top in the class. But he knows my weaknesses and problems like “lack of concentration”. So if he wants me to top in the class, why doesn’t he simply show me the question paper which would be there in exam? And why does he want me to give paper at all at the first hand?! He can simply give me an A+ without me going through the lengthy papers!”

Does it make sense to you? If the things would have been that easy, then why should there have been an admiration for the people who follow the “Light”? Allah does give us all chances in life to return to His Way. Our each and every breath is a living witness to the fact that Allah is still giving us His rope, and we still have chance to return to Him. Some turn quickly, some take considerable time, and some never return at all! Your friend seems to have a desire for the “Right way” so if he really wants to seek the truth, Allah will make it easy for him/her.

Everything requires time, so if your friend really seeks for guidance, Allah will make him/her get it. It is His promise in Quran. But the passions should be true you see!

[Masuma]

@ Skavau and Brother MMohammed:

I don’t know exactly what long discussions you people are having but some glimpses I got tells me that Skavau has some objection on calling this life an “Examination”!

@ Skavau:

Ok, so if you have problem with the word examination, then let’s call life a “TEST”. It is a test for the Hereafter. Allah has repeated many times in Quran that He has made this life a test and people who will succeed in this test will earn Paradise as their reward and those who will fail in this test will have Hell-Fire as their punishment.

Now I would like to see what problem, (as you seems to have many :rollseyes) ,would you have with this “Statement” which I’ve just mentioned (in case, IF you’ve any prob, otherwise if you’ve understood it, then it’s a great pleasure! )

[Missinglinks]

Originally Posted by glo

I have heard so many believers in God make claims of scientific proof, and yet none of them has ever convinced the atheist community.

Duuuhhh otherwise there wouldn't be an atheist community anymore! haha.. i think for the surviving of their idology and community they just have to ignore how much proof there is for Allah they just say "no proof", because everybody can say no, it's so easy and so strong, with "no" you can survive many centuries...

Yes, people usually find some 'atheist' or another, who allegedly found scientific proof for the existance of God and became a believer ... but by large atheists remain unimpressed.

let's change dimensions... Yes, people usually find some 'muslim' or another, who allegedly found scientific proof for the (lie of) non-existance of God and became a atheist ... but by large muslims remain unimpressed

so what about this, then if that is your proof, then this is our proof...

[MMohammed]

Ok, so if you have problem with the word examination, then let’s call life a “TEST”.

:D :D :D.For me Exams are also TEST :D

[Skavau]

I don’t know exactly what long discussions you people are having but some glimpses I got tells me that Skavau has some objection on calling this life an “Examination”!

Ok, so if you have problem with the word examination, then let’s call life a “TEST”. It is a test for the Hereafter. Allah has repeated many times in Quran that He has made this life a test and people who will succeed in this test will earn Paradise as their reward and those who will fail in this test will have Hell-Fire as their punishment.

Now I would like to see what problem, (as you seems to have many :rollseyes) ,would you have with this “Statement” which I’ve just mentioned (in case, IF you’ve any prob, otherwise if you’ve understood it, then it’s a great pleasure! )

Playing semantics does not change the problem I have here. A test, as MMohammed has pointed out - in this context is the same as an examination. At any rate, even if you did describe life as a test for us to participate in - it is unravelled in three simple ways:

Firstly, I and other people you would declare as failing the test right now, are not even aware of such a test existing. How can it be insisted that we must be held accountable by the standards of a test that not only did we not agree with to be held to, but are not even aware of?

Secondly, how does failing a test, in any context provide good reason to be repaid with eternal torture?

Thirdly, How do you reconcile the claim that life is a test for the hereafter with the fact that you also (presumably) contend God is all-knowing, and thus by consequence must already be aware and always has been aware of everyone's choices, everyone's beliefs and everyone's understandings on all issues ever?

[Lynx]

Long ago in the city of Baghdad, there was a Muslim empire. On one side of the River Tigris were the royal palaces and on the other side was the city. The Muslims were gathered in the Royal Palace when an athiest approached them. He said to them, ‘I don’t believe in God, there cannot be a God, you cannot hear Him or see Him, you’re wasting your time! Bring me your best debator and I will debate this issue with him.’
The best debator at the time was Imam Abu Hanifah Rahimullah. A messenger from amongst the Muslims was sent over the River Tigris to the city, where Abu Hanifah Rahimullah was, in order to tell him about the athiest who was awaiting him. On crossing the River Tigris, the messenger conveyed the message to Abu Hanifah Rahimullah saying, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, an athiest is waiting for you, to debate you, please come!’ Abu Hanifah Rahimullah told the messeneger that he would be on his way.
The messenger went over the River Tigris once again and to the Royal Palaces, where everyone including the athiest awaited the arrival of Abu Hanifah Rahimullah. It was sunset at the time and one hour had passed, but Abu Hanifah Rahimullah still hadn’t arrived. Another hour had passed, but still there was no sign of him. The Muslims started to become tense and worried about his late arrival. They did not want the athiest to think that they were too scared to debate him, yet they did not want to take up the challenge themselves as Abu Hanifah Rahimullah was the best of Debators from amongst the Muslims. Another hour passed, and suddenly the athiest started laughing and said, ‘ Your best debator is too scared! He knows he’s wrong, he is too frightened to come and debate with me. I gurantee he will not turn up today.’
The Muslims increased in apprehension and eventually it had passed midnight, and the athiest had a smile on his face. The clock ticked on, and finally Abu Hanifah Rahimullah had arrived. The Muslims inquired about his lateness and remarked, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, a messenger sent for you hours ago, and you arrive now, explain your lateness to us.’
Abu Hanifah Rahimullah apologises for his lateness and begins to explain, while the atheist listens to his story.
‘Once the messenger delivered the message to me, I began to make my way to the River Tigris, and on reaching the river bank I realised there was no boat, in order to cross the river. It was getting dark, and I looked around, there was no boat anywhere nor was there a navigator or a sailor in order for me to cross the river to get to the Royal Palaces. I continued to look around for a boat, as I did not want the athiest to think I was running away and did not want to debate with him.
I was standing on the river bank looking for a navigator or a boat when something caught my attention in the middle of the river. I looked forward, and to my amazement I saw planks of wood rising to the surface from the sea bed. I was shocked, amazed, I couldn’t believe what I saw seeing. Ready made planks of wood were rising up to the surface and joining together. They were all the same width and length, I was astounded at what I saw.
I continued to look into the middle of the river, and then I saw nails coming up from the sea floor. They positioned themselves onto the boat and held the planks together, without them being banged. I stood in amazement and thought to myself, ‘Oh Allah, how can this happen, planks of wood rising to the surface by itself, and then nails positioning themselves onto the boat without being banged?’ I could not undertsand what was happening before my eyes.’
The athiest meanwhile was listening with a smile on his face. Abu Hanifah Rahimullah continued, ‘I was still standing on the river bank watching these planks of wood join together with nails. I could see water seeping through the gaps in the wood, and suddenly I saw a sealant appear from the river and it began sealing the gaps without someone having poured it, again I thought, ‘Ya Allah, how is this possible, how can sealant appear and seal the gaps without someone having poured it, and nails appear without someone having banged them.’ I looked closer and I could see a boat forming before my eyes, I stood in amazement and was filled with shock. All of a sudden a sail appeared and I thought to myself, ‘How is this happening, a boat has appeared before my eyes by itself, planks of wood, nails, sealant and now a sail, but how can I use this boat in order to cross the river to the Royal Palaces?’ I stood staring in wonderment and suddenly the boat began to move. It came towards me against the current. It stood floating beside me while I was on the river bank, as if telling me to embark onto it. I went on the boat and yet again it began to move. There was no navigator or sailor on the boat, and the boat began to travel towards the direction of the royal palaces, without anyone having programmed it as to where to go. I could not understand what was happening, and how this boat had formed and was taking me to my destination against the flow of water. The boat eventually reached the other side of the River Tigris and I disembarked. I turned around and the boat had disappeared, and that is why I am late.’
At this moment, the athiest brust out laughing and remarked, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, I heard that you were the best debator from amongst the Muslims, I heard that you were the wisest, the most knowledgable from amongst your people. From seeing you today, I can say that you show none of these qualities. You speak of a boat appearing from nowhere, without someone having built it. Nails positioning themselves without someone having banged them, sealant being poured without someone having poured it, and the boat taking you to your destination without a navigator against the tide, your taking childish, your talking rediculous, I swear I do not belive a word of it!’
Abu Hanifah Rahimullah turned to the athiest and replied, ‘You don’t believe a word of it? You dont believe that nails can appear by themselves? You dont believe sealant can be poured by itself? You dont believe that a boat can move without a navigator, hence you don’t believe that a boat can appear without a boat maker?’
The athiest remarked defiantly, ‘Yes I dont believe a word of it!’
Abu Hanifah Rahimullah replied, ‘If you cannot believe that a boat came into being without a boat maker, than this is only a boat, how can you believe that the whole world, the universe, the stars, the oceans, and the planets came into being without a creator?
The athiest astonished at his reply got up and fled.

If you just wrote 'Argument from Design' it would have been easier ;p

This has nothing to do with the OP nor does it have anything to do with the fact that the OP is a horrible straw-man of the atheist position.

^^^^
I simply love this story.Thanks for the share!
Allah knows better if this article(which I posted) is true or not.But listen, if your heart is locked up, you can't believe from the greatest proof or dialouge or whatever too!
Seek for Guidance! Seek it yourself! Before verbally fighting with others, I strongly recommend you, argue yourself.
I think Arguments are of no value.If you raise a question, you will get 6 answers and neither of any arguer will believe in his rival or accept his opinion.Believe me! Till it gets your interest, you will never believe him!
I kindly ask you to do this!
Thanks

I explained on page 1 why this is such a crappy dialogue and others like Skavu have given even more reasons why it's a crappy dialogue. I am talking about your original post MMohamaed. I think you're victim of your own criticism; even though your position is demonstrated to be false you won't admit it no matter what. You should take some private time and just reflect on these matters. I am afraid it's your heart that's sealed :)

[Masuma]

@ Skavau:

(I’m sorry for the long post…couldn’t summaries it…I would appreciate if you bear with it… busts all your claims, bwaahahahaa!) :D

Playing semantics does not change the problem I have here. A test, as MMohammed has pointed out - in this context is the same as an examination.

Ah! Big surprise! :rollseyes …I was pointing out the same thing actually. :D Life is a “test” or it is an “Examination”…can call it by any name.

At any rate, even if you did describe life as a test for us to participate in

Ahan! Wrong there! I don’t but Allah does describe life as a “test for the hereafter”. Don’t change the words…!


Rebuking your claim that people are unaware of this life being a test for the Hereafter:

Brother, keeping your eyes closed won’t change anything. (Pigeon closing its eyes in front of a cat won’t unravel the danger, would it?) If there wouldn’t have been any test followed by strict reckoning at the end, then why should at all there needed to be standards of good and bad deeds? People would have done anything they liked as long as it benefited them as nobody would have questioned them at the end! And if not for God, who could have decided what is good and what is bad? Now don’t start giving examples of the consensus of society on these matters as this democracy is so busted even at its very base that even the pathetic and completely hideous clauses would be accepted by people in majority. If you need an example then I give you the example of Mexico that how people there legalized homosexuality and these people were in majority! So who decides what is good and what is bad? Such people???

Then in that context, a robber, or a rapist, as long as he is not caught, would be fine with what he has done. Why does he need to care at all? There is going to be no questioning for him at the end. Who’s going to take an account? Nobody?!

So this actually undoes your remark that people are not aware of a “test” existing as everyone knows “As you sow, so shall you reap”. Corrupt politicians who became successful at hiding their crimes and killers who were not punished in this world, and when they die; do you think they have reaped what they had sowed? They were not even punished in this world, so now what about their crimes? Are they just going to remain unpunished as according to you there is no “test” so how can there be any reckoning?

This totally makes your argument weak that people don’t know there is a “test”. Or maybe you should have said that people don’t ACCEPT any such “test” existing in this life!


As far as your statement goes that “How can it be insisted that we must be held accountable by the standards of a test that not only did we not agree with to be held to,”
So your agreeing or disagreeing won’t change anything. It is the Will of the Creator and your petty will holds no value in this regard!

Secondly, how does failing a test, in any context provide good reason to be repaid with eternal torture?

That is also the “Will” of the Creator. In one way, it is actually a blessing of Allah for those who’ll make it to Paradise that now they need to undergo no further “tests” and can remain in Paradise for eternity. But of course for the people of Hell, it would be horrible! Also that there is a range of crimes, crimes of higher and lower degree, so it is up to Allah to bring justice to everyone. I mean, a person who was guilty of a minor crime like slapping the other person won’t be simply cast away into Hell! Please! Allah, the most just, won’t punish someone more than what he/she deserves!

Surah ZilZal of Quran, a soul reverberating Surah tells us this:

“1. When the earth is shaken to her utmost convulsion, 2. And the earth throws up her burdens, 3. And man cries out: “What is the matter with her?”, 4. On that day will she declare her tidings: 5. For that your Lord will have given her inspiration. 6. On that day will men proceed in companies sorted out, to be shown their deeds. 7. Then shall anyone who has done an atom’s weight of good see it! 8. And anyone who has done an atom’s weight of evil shall see it!”
(Chapter 99, Verses 1-8)

Thirdly, How do you reconcile the claim that life is a test for the hereafter with the fact that you also (presumably) contend God is all-knowing, and thus by consequence must already be aware and always has been aware of everyone's choices, everyone's beliefs and everyone's understandings on all issues ever?

I must say, a brilliant question asked at the end!;D For this, you need to consider an example:

“There is a very learned Professor who teaches 2 students, Student A and Student B. The Professor observes that Student A is very hard-working whereas Student B is a failure. He doesn’t study at all. One day, Professor announces in class that his past experience tells him that Student A would top in class whereas Student B would fail. The exam time comes and the same thing happens i.e. Student A who studied very hard came first, whereas student B who didn’t study at all failed in the exam. But later on, Student B puts blame on Professor that just because he once announced in the class that I would fail, so I’ve failed for real!”

Now do you think his claim is just? Did he really fail because of Professor’s prediction? Learned Professor only made the statement based on his experience!

The same example goes for us. Allah already knows who will make it to Paradise and who will make it to hell, but He has given us free will to choose whichever way we like. He has given us all chance in world to choose right or wrong. Now just because He is all-knowing, can anyone put blame on him that I’ve failed because Allah is all-knowing?!!!
It’s silly!

Now in the end, I pray for you brother that may Allah show you the “Right way” and open up your heart to Islam!

You know brother, that being an Atheist, you already believe in first part of the Muslim Shahadah

“La-illaha” i.e. “There is no God”

Now we Muslims’ job is to make you accept the second part of Shahadah

“Ill-Allah” i.e. “But Allah”!

May Allah make you accept it too!
And may Allah bless my beloved Dr.Zakir Naik!!!





Wa Akhiru-Dawanaa-An-Alhamdolillahi, Rabbil Alamin!:statisfie

[Skavau]

Ah! Big surprise! …I was pointing out the same thing actually. Life is a “test” or it is an “Examination”…can call it by any name.

Yes... okay. Same issue each time nevermind the word choice.

Ahan! Wrong there! I don’t but Allah does describe life as a “test for the hereafter”. Don’t change the words…!

Semantics. I know what you meant indeed. I went on later to reference the fact that you consider life a test for the hereafter.

Brother, keeping your eyes closed won’t change anything. (Pigeon closing its eyes in front of a cat won’t unravel the danger, would it?)

Nevermind how strikingly obvious it is or not to you, billions of people do not see it and are not at all believing of the claim that an afterlife exists. It is all very well to say that they have their eyes closed, but it does not get you closer to demonstrating your claims.

If there wouldn’t have been any test followed by strict reckoning at the end, then why should at all there needed to be standards of good and bad deeds?

This is circular. You ask what is the point of good and bad deeds in the absence of a system of reward and punishment. This is a viewing of them from an Islamic perspective. This is something that your world view sets you up to presume. You measure good and bad by obedience and disobedience respectively, and you justify their relevance by self-interest. In short, it is not my dichtonomy.

People would have done anything they liked as long as it benefited them as nobody would have questioned them at the end!

This is amusingly ironic. You are claiming that without the promise of heaven and the threat of hell to coerce people into acting morally, they would have acted to their own benefit. Can you not see the irony?

You are by your own admission (other as well) only doing good because of the promise of heaven and the potential of hell. That is behavioural constraints based on self-interest.

And if not for God, who could have decided what is good and what is bad?

We could. We have, we do, we will. Morality is by humans, for humans. It is your brand of belief that has you consider otherwise.

Now don’t start giving examples of the consensus of society on these matters as this democracy is so busted even at its very base that even the pathetic and completely hideous clauses would be accepted by people in majority.

A societal consensus is a method to which we discover what the majority wants. It does not however necessitate that a popular vote is a means to discover what ought. This is why in democratic states, we have constitutions so that populism cannot prevail. It is more specifically, why the U.N. Charter of Human Rights exists.

If you need an example then I give you the example of Mexico that how people there legalized homosexuality and these people were in majority! So who decides what is good and what is bad? Such people???

I don't have a problem with the legalisation of homosexuality. Did you imagine I would?

Then in that context, a robber, or a rapist, as long as he is not caught, would be fine with what he has done. Why does he need to care at all? There is going to be no questioning for him at the end. Who’s going to take an account? Nobody?!

This has strayed very far from my original point, which if I may remind you: was about people being unaware of life (as you claim) being a test for the hereafter.

At any rate, no-one is claiming that a robber, or a rapist necessarily must take guilt in what they had done. It is up to each nations own police and criminal law system that action is taken against the rapist or the robber.

So this actually undoes your remark that people are not aware of a “test” existing as everyone knows “As you sow, so shall you reap”.

I have no idea how you think what you said at all validates that. I am still just as unconvinced as are billions of other people that a hereafter exists and that we will be judged for our actions here on earth when entering it.

Corrupt politicians who became successful at hiding their crimes and killers who were not punished in this world, and when they die; do you think they have reaped what they had sowed? They were not even punished in this world, so now what about their crimes? Are they just going to remain unpunished as according to you there is no “test” so how can there be any reckoning?

Yes. There is no credible evidence of life existing after death. All evidence indicates that our existence is entirely dependent on our bodies. Whilst this may come across to you as somewhat nihilistic, it is an observed reality. Your confusion over this issue is a projection of your steadfast perspective that all morals have a foundation in reality. You then project this perspective onto my world view and then question how it is consistent.

At any rate, you cannot derive an is from an ought (the converse of the naturalistic fallacy, eh). Just because it might be nicer if we could rely on reality vesting out some retribution on the historical dictators and unrepentant mass-murderers does not mean that it does. Know that also, just because that nature is apathetic to the fate of the contemptible does not mean that we ought to. Our efforts at civilisation and our protection of it in the face of chaos can only be produced in life and we ought to put more value into that.

This totally makes your argument weak that people don’t know there is a “test”. Or maybe you should have said that people don’t ACCEPT any such “test” existing in this life!

No, you have changed my words. There is no evidence of a 'test' existing that determines our fate in some possible afterlife. I am not convinced by such a claim that says it exists, and neither are billions of other people.

As far as your statement goes that “How can it be insisted that we must be held accountable by the standards of a test that not only did we not agree with to be held to,”
So your agreeing or disagreeing won’t change anything. It is the Will of the Creator and your petty will holds no value in this regard!

You describe God as a celestial dictator. I am told repeatedly that perhaps I ought to be grateful for the gift of life so bestowed upon me by this deity. I am frequently reminded that if it was not for him I would not exist, but apparently this gratitude must extend to capitulation of privacy and free-will in favour of eternal submission (on threat of eternal torture). In light of these demands as a price for my existence - what is there to be thankful for? At the dawn of humanity's existence (whether you profess it to be merely thousands of years ago or longer) we were ignorant and frightened. We were created, without our permission to live in a hostile world full of natural disasters, natural diseases and natural predators. For thousands and thousands of years almost every human endured short and harsh lives just to survive. Not withstanding the natural hostility, we would also dive further into destruction by engaging in petty wars over territory, theology and power. This poor, pathetic existnece that billions of people still suffer through in parts of the world is something that we should have been thankful for? What masochism is this that you promote?

That is also the “Will” of the Creator. In one way, it is actually a blessing of Allah for those who’ll make it to Paradise that now they need to undergo no further “tests” and can remain in Paradise for eternity. But of course for the people of Hell, it would be horrible! Also that there is a range of crimes, crimes of higher and lower degree, so it is up to Allah to bring justice to everyone. I mean, a person who was guilty of a minor crime like slapping the other person won’t be simply cast away into Hell! Please! Allah, the most just, won’t punish someone more than what he/she deserves!

I do not believe in a God not because of some spiteful disobedience, or as some arrogant belief that I do not need to - but simply do not believe in a deity entirely because I am not convinced. I simply do not believe it likely that a divine being exists. I do go so far as to state that I actually cannot believe in a God until specific evidence or logical argument has been presented sufficiently. Are you to say that my sincerity born from my free-will that God decreed I should have would be my downfall? It would be my confession towards my punishment? How can you defend the concept of someone that would punish people entirely for getting their information wrong?

Also, I should ask do you consider it a proportionate response to torture someone infinitely for finite crimes? If so, I should ask what is even the point of the retribution? They have no opportunity to present a case, or no chance to eventually leave their state - they must suffer for eternity. It comes across as blatant sadism as there is no purpose for it.

I must say, a brilliant question asked at the end! For this, you need to consider an example:

“There is a very learned Professor who teaches 2 students, Student A and Student B. The Professor observes that Student A is very hard-working whereas Student B is a failure. He doesn’t study at all. One day, Professor announces in class that his past experience tells him that Student A would top in class whereas Student B would fail. The exam time comes and the same thing happens i.e. Student A who studied very hard came first, whereas student B who didn’t study at all failed in the exam. But later on, Student B puts blame on Professor that just because he once announced in the class that I would fail, so I’ve failed for real!”

The Professor is not omniscient. Despite his suspicions, he could never have actually known that. God however, is professed to be omniscient with an unquestionable and intricant understanding of every being that has ever existed and will exist. There is no way that God could not know the fate of every single being. Indeed, God is not only omniscient in this regard but he willed everything. He willed the existence of heaven and hell, and with the foreknowledge that billions of people could not live up to his standards, he still pressed on regardless.

This does not sound like inspirational design to me, but comes across as capricious.

The same example goes for us. Allah already knows who will make it to Paradise and who will make it to hell, but He has given us free will to choose whichever way we like. He has given us all chance in world to choose right or wrong. Now just because He is all-knowing, can anyone put blame on him that I’ve failed because Allah is all-knowing?!!!
It’s silly!

This is a direct adaption from an individual at another forum known as THHuxley by me. I am cutting and pasting a text document I have saved in order to sufficiently present what I mean:

A: Allah is proclaimed to be omniscient (Premise 1). Allah therefore knows the outcome of every action, event and has knowledge of every fact.
B: A human choice is an event. If I decide to go to the shops, then I am initiating a state of affairs.
C: If Allah knows the outcome of every event then he knows the outcome of every single human choice. (Premise 1)
D: If Allah knows the outcome of any future choice by any being, then the outcome described is the only possible outcome because:

D1: If any outcome from a human choice was different than Allah's knowledge then Allah would be wrong. This contradicts Premise 1.

D2: If Allah was wrong then Allah would not be omniscient.

E: If any choice has only one outcome then there is no choice at all. (Premise 3) (Free Choice relies on the ability to do otherwise. Free-Will relies on the ability of choice. Both are made redundant by the existence of omnipotence contained within a single source (in this scenario: contained within God). If God is omniscient then God necessarily knows the result of all actions within humanity. If all actions within humanity are known then there is no such things as Free-Choice since the outcome has already been pre-seen. If this is the case then there is no Free-Will because Free-Will is dependent upon the ability to exercise choice.)
F: If every choice has only one outcome then there is actual no choice at all, only events.
G: If Allah is omniscient, then every choice is no choice at all. (Omniscience necessitates the ability of knowledge of all outcomes: past, present and future. This also necessarily leads to God knowing all future events that will happen. If all future events are known to happen, then all human choices are also known to happen. If all human choices are known to happen and cannot change then they lose the status of 'choice' and simply become rendered into events. As Premise 3 states, choice relies on the possibility of more than one specific outcome. If only a specific outcome can happen then there is no choice, only consequences of events. Only under omnipotence can this happen as all future 'choices' would already be known by the source which possesses omnipotence.)

If Allah is omniscient, then there is no free-will at all.

You know brother, that being an Atheist, you already believe in first part of the Muslim Shahadah

“La-illaha” i.e. “There is no God”

Now we Muslims’ job is to make you accept the second part of Shahadah

“Ill-Allah” i.e. “But Allah”!

I am aware. Zakir Naik is so fond of saying it. It is a cheap point, really.

[Masuma]

Nevermind how strikingly obvious it is or not to you, billions of people do not see it and are not at all believing of the claim that an afterlife exists.

What a dumb statement to make! Of course I know there are many Atheists out there in the world, exceeding far more in numbers than the believers! And that is the reason we Muslims strive and struggle to present Allah’s message to you people, otherwise there wasn’t any need!

It is all very well to say that they have their eyes closed, but it does not get you closer to demonstrating your claims.

I’ve demonstrated my claim and busted yours mashAllah in a good way by the grace of Al-Mighty. Now if you don’t believe it then what can I do!

This is circular. You ask what is the point of good and bad deeds in the absence of a system of reward and punishment. This is a viewing of them from an Islamic perspective.

I DON’T say that “what is the POINT of good or bad deeds”! I’ve said that then there will be NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN A GOOD OR BAD DEED! PEOPLE WOULD HAVE THEIR OWN STANDARDS OF DECIDING WHICH ONE IS TO BE CALLED A GOOD AND WHICH ONE TO BE LABELED AS A BAD DEED!

I hope now you may read it properly! ;D

You measure good and bad by obedience and disobedience respectively, and you justify their relevance by self-interest. In short, it is not my dichtonomy.

Ahan! Again wrong quoting! I measure good and bad deeds by their nature, judges it through the norms given to us by Allah in Holy Quran. But tell me brother, :D, how do you judge which deed falls in what category? I reckon, through SOCIETY norms most probably? Hmmm? :D So there is the whole problem! Your society may regard something as good or neutral whereas another society may regard that same thing as absurd, hideous and blasphemous! So which society is right then? Where does the consensus go now? And I tried to give you an example in this regard which you so clearly paid no attention to and that is of Mexico where people legalized homosexuality! Now in that society, this crime is going to be considered no more a crime whereas if seeing it from another society’s perspective, it is one of the most hideous in the list. They consider it unnatural and they have their solid reasons with them that if even half of the population turned gay or lesbians, the society would soon see an epidemic of diseases, incurable ones, which were never heard of before. The society would see a drastic decrease in population growth, and God knows what else! So which society is gaining ground here?

In this way, different societies will have their different norms but who will decide which thing is right and what is wrong? So the answer is that only God can. He created us, and knows our nature even far more better than ourselves and so if He says something is lawful, we accept it and if He forbids us from something, we abstain from it. In this way only, the unity and peace can be achieved, otherwise we have seen what happens when two different groups promote their own theologies like in world wars!

You are by your own admission (other as well) only doing good because of the promise of heaven and the potential of hell. That is behavioural constraints based on self-interest.

Gives me great grief of how much you have narrowed down and belittled this beautiful aspect of life! Yukh! This is just one aspect, one initiative which encourages people to do good deeds and keeps a check on those who might turn into black sheep of the community if not been warned already! Some people may do it for the love of Allah but my argument still holds, and is strongly based that if there would not have been a reckoning in the life hereafter, people would have done whatever they liked! And I think you’ve failed miserably to prove me wrong here!

BTW in Islam, there is no self-interest actually but I can very well understand that you calling others as being self-interested provide nothing but a reflection of your own mind.

I don't have a problem with the legalisation of homosexuality. Did you imagine I would?

Now if I’ll say “something” here, you obviously not going to like it so keeping it civil, I move forward… (Bwahahaaha!) :D


Now let me tell you one more thing. Our judgment of right and wrong is also provided to us by Allah. It is the quality which He has bestowed us to distinguish between good and bad. So everything is actually already happening by the “will” of Allah and so your acceptance or rejection of Him won’t make any difference!

I am still just as unconvinced as are billions of other people that a hereafter exists and that we will be judged for our actions here on earth when entering it.

So what can I do brother, I don’t even care whether you are convinced or not! :D (Urdu sentence defines it better, “Meine thaika tou nai lay rakha apko convince karnay ka!" Hee-hee!) Never mind, I’m doing what I’m required to i.e. only giving you the message of Allah. Now giving you guidance is in the hands of Al-Mighty only and not for me to worry about!

Saying it as a matter of fact, you too have totally failed in convincing me of your views that no “reckoning” would be done in the hereafter. You’ve also failed to explain that how do you defend this idea of robbers and rapists, who saved themselves from the worldly punishment, be punished for their crimes? As according to you there will be no reckoning so does that mean that these evil people will not be punished ever? Now this sentence busts your argument so completely!

This is a direct adaption from an individual at another forum known as THHuxley by me. I am cutting and pasting a text document I have saved in order to sufficiently present what I mean:

A: Allah is proclaimed to be omniscient (Premise 1). Allah therefore knows the outcome of every action, event and has knowledge of every fact.
B: A human choice is an event. If I decide to go to the shops, then I am initiating a state of affairs.
C: If Allah knows the outcome of every event then he knows the outcome of every single human choice. (Premise 1)
D: If Allah knows the outcome of any future choice by any being, then the outcome described is the only possible outcome because:
D1: If any outcome from a human choice was different than Allah's knowledge then Allah would be wrong. This contradicts Premise 1.
D2: If Allah was wrong then Allah would not be omniscient.
E: If any choice has only one outcome then there is no choice at all. (Premise 3) (Free Choice relies on the ability to do otherwise. Free-Will relies on the ability of choice. Both are made redundant by the existence of omnipotence contained within a single source (in this scenario: contained within God). If God is omniscient then God necessarily knows the result of all actions within humanity. If all actions within humanity are known then there is no such things as Free-Choice since the outcome has already been pre-seen. If this is the case then there is no Free-Will because Free-Will is dependent upon the ability to exercise choice.)
F: If every choice has only one outcome then there is actual no choice at all, only events.
G: If Allah is omniscient, then every choice is no choice at all. (Omniscience necessitates the ability of knowledge of all outcomes: past, present and future. This also necessarily leads to God knowing all future events that will happen. If all future events are known to happen, then all human choices are also known to happen. If all human choices are known to happen and cannot change then they lose the status of 'choice' and simply become rendered into events. As Premise 3 states, choice relies on the possibility of more than one specific outcome. If only a specific outcome can happen then there is no choice, only consequences of events. Only under omnipotence can this happen as all future 'choices' would already be known by the source which possesses omnipotence.)

If Allah is omniscient, then there is no free-will at all.

Whaaat! I’m not going to waste my poor mind on this whole word puzzle or whatever! I already have physics and chemistry to do! :hiding: What I can do is to answer to this part later on after my exam is over.

I am aware. Zakir Naik is so fond of saying it. It is a cheap point, really.

Not as cheap as the mocking and scoffing statements you pass! …it can’t beat you in that! Bwahahaaha! :D

Now this marks the end of our discussion. I won’t be answering your posts as long as my papers are there but I look forward to more discussions in future. inshAllah!

I still pray for you that may Allah show you the right way! Ameen.


:peace:

[Argamemnon]

You can't get it.You see the word "Good" here as doing better for others or nature.Good is for oneself or others.
And man is innocent.Thats what Islam says.But Satan is the one who whispers evil into the man secretly.So Evil is not committed by ourselves.But as you are an atheist, you wont believe something as Satan.
We will never have the conscience by ourselves.Yet we are shown it.
But what I am talking about is bounded by Good and Evil and does not involve Neutrality.

That's not true bro, let's not put all the blame on shaytan for our evil deeds. Human beings are perfectly capable of doing evil deeds without shaytan helping them.

[Skavau]

What a dumb statement to make! Of course I know there are many Atheists out there in the world, exceeding far more in numbers than the believers! And that is the reason we Muslims strive and struggle to present Allah’s message to you people, otherwise there wasn’t any need!

Actually, atheists, agnostics, non-religious, secular etc do not exceed theists or Muslims. Click here.

I’ve demonstrated my claim and busted yours mashAllah in a good way by the grace of Al-Mighty. Now if you don’t believe it then what can I do!

No, you haven't. You've responded by bringing up red herrings and other pointless topics regarding morality (that had nothing to do with my first point).

I DON’T say that “what is the POINT of good or bad deeds”! I’ve said that then there will be NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN A GOOD OR BAD DEED! PEOPLE WOULD HAVE THEIR OWN STANDARDS OF DECIDING WHICH ONE IS TO BE CALLED A GOOD AND WHICH ONE TO BE LABELED AS A BAD DEED!

Yes, but your proposal was that there would be no method of determine what would be 'right' or 'wrong'. You get held up far more on semantics than Skye does. At any rate, we already pragmatically have our own standards of right and wrong. My beliefs on morality, and standards on morality very obviously completely differ from yours. Both of our standards of morality also further, differ from that of your average Hindu.

Ahan! Again wrong quoting! I measure good and bad deeds by their nature, judges it through the norms given to us by Allah in Holy Quran.

I didn't quote you. I made an observation based on your complaints about morality in absence of reward or punishment for good and bad deeds respectively. You suggest that morality can only have objective merit, or indeed any merit at all if heaven and hell exist.

But tell me brother, , how do you judge which deed falls in what category? I reckon, through SOCIETY norms most probably?

By how it impacts on the lives of the individual - not through societal norms. I am not a cultural relativist.

Hmmm? So there is the whole problem! Your society may regard something as good or neutral whereas another society may regard that same thing as absurd, hideous and blasphemous! So which society is right then? Where does the consensus go now?

I am not a cultural relativist. These questions are strawmen.

And I tried to give you an example in this regard which you so clearly paid no attention to and that is of Mexico where people legalized homosexuality!

I did pay attention to it. I directly responded to your question about it by stating that I have and see no ethical problem with people being homosexuality.

Now in that society, this crime is going to be considered no more a crime whereas if seeing it from another society’s perspective, it is one of the most hideous in the list. They consider it unnatural and they have their solid reasons with them that if even half of the population turned gay or lesbians, the society would soon see an epidemic of diseases, incurable ones, which were never heard of before. The society would see a drastic decrease in population growth, and God knows what else! So which society is gaining ground here?

[citation needed]

Homosexuality is not contagious and even the most liberal of statistics suggest that homosexuality is only existent in at most 10% of the population. In case you were concerned further, homosexuals can and do reproduce and/or adopt children.

In this way, different societies will have their different norms but who will decide which thing is right and what is wrong? So the answer is that only God can.

You are inventing an explanation. If I was to wonder, rather cluelessly and presumptuously as you appear to do about who (or what) 'decides' what is right and what is wrong I have no reason to specifically assume that anyone does. You are forgetting perhaps the rather more likely and naturalistic answer that, it seems no-one 'objectively' decides what is right and what is wrong. You cannot invent an entity for which there is no empirical evidence for to explain an unknown.

Gives me great grief of how much you have narrowed down and belittled this beautiful aspect of life! Yukh! This is just one aspect, one initiative which encourages people to do good deeds and keeps a check on those who might turn into black sheep of the community if not been warned already!

It is the one aspect, and one initiative as you say that you have said that if it did not exist, then there would or could be no meaning to morality. I quote (in order to prevent you from backtracking): "If there wouldn’t have been any test followed by strict reckoning at the end, then why should at all there needed to be standards of good and bad deeds?"

Some people may do it for the love of Allah but my argument still holds, and is strongly based that if there would not have been a reckoning in the life hereafter, people would have done whatever they liked! And I think you’ve failed miserably to prove me wrong here!

I haven't needed to. Some of the most peaceful and prosperous countries on the entire planet (Click here) happen to contain millions of people that do not believe in hell. They do not do what they like. They have civil law, a criminal justice system and a progressive economy.

BTW in Islam, there is no self-interest actually but I can very well understand that you calling others as being self-interested provide nothing but a reflection of your own mind.

You must be joking. On almost every thread I have come across on here, there are members frequently talking about how they are doing good deads to increase their chances of gaining entry into heaven. That is directly motivated by self-interest.

In fact, by your own admission this life is a "test" where the specific objective is to gain entry into this heaven. How you think that does not motivate self-interest eludes me.

Now if I’ll say “something” here, you obviously not going to like it so keeping it civil, I move forward… (Bwahahaaha!)

You type like an older poster I remember from another forum with random emoticon usage and arbitrary font size (usually designed to mock, scorn and/or boast). At any rate, say what you like. It takes a lot to upset me.

In fact, you have the same avatar as he did. Are you Raziel?

Now let me tell you one more thing. Our judgment of right and wrong is also provided to us by Allah. It is the quality which He has bestowed us to distinguish between good and bad. So everything is actually already happening by the “will” of Allah and so your acceptance or rejection of Him won’t make any difference!

Well, how lovely of you to tell me. This is of course, completely without evidence and nothing but a profession of belief. I have no reason to accept it.

So what can I do brother, I don’t even care whether you are convinced or not! (Urdu sentence defines it better, “Meine thaika tou nai lay rakha apko convince karnay ka!" Hee-hee!) Never mind, I’m doing what I’m required to i.e. only giving you the message of Allah. Now giving you guidance is in the hands of Al-Mighty only and not for me to worry about!

This is some strange system of morality you have got here. You have, by your own admission just given me a message which according to you I was completely ignorant of prior to it and now since gaining this message I could be condemned for not accepting it.

I'd like to pay particular attention to the part where you said: "Never mind, I’m doing what I’m required to i.e. only giving you the message of Allah.". It is, despite your original protests more admission of an obedience to authority mentality.

My disbelief in an afterlife demonstrates my point. I don't accept Islam as true. I don't accept that there is a test going on, and therefore there are people subject to this test that are unaware of its relevance or even existence. Which was my original point (that you claim to have nulled).

Saying it as a matter of fact, you too have totally failed in convincing me of your views that no “reckoning” would be done in the hereafter. You’ve also failed to explain that how do you defend this idea of robbers and rapists, who saved themselves from the worldly punishment, be punished for their crimes? As according to you there will be no reckoning so does that mean that these evil people will not be punished ever?

This doesn't make any sense. You claim that I have failed to convince you that there is no reckoning in the hereafter for the wretched in life, but then you go on to complain about the fact that I believe there is no reckoning in the afterlife. Since I've already answered this, I will simply cut and paste my original response (perhaps with some slight alteration and expansion to assist you):

Yes. There is no credible evidence of life existing after death. All evidence indicates that our existence is entirely dependent on our bodies. Whilst this may come across to you as somewhat nihilistic, it is an observed reality. Your confusion over this issue is a projection of your steadfast perspective that all morals have a foundation in reality. You then project this perspective onto my world view and then question how it is consistent.

At any rate, you cannot derive an is from an ought (the converse of the naturalistic fallacy, eh). Just because it might be nicer if we could rely on reality vesting out some retribution on the historical dictators and unrepentant mass-murderers does not mean that it does. Know that also, just because that nature is apathetic to the fate of the contemptible does not mean that we ought to. Our efforts at civilisation and our protection of it in the face of chaos can only be produced in life and we ought to put more value into that.

Now this sentence busts your argument so completely!

These verbal proclamations of victory are amusing. What argument of mine have you "bust"? I'm not sure you even know what I'm contending here. It was you who made the accusation and argument that there is an issue with my moral world view. It was you who complained that under my world view, there is no objective judgment in some afterlife. It was not my argument, it was and remains yours. My response is to agree that yes, there is no punishment in the afterlife because there is no evidence that an afterlife even exists. These are not moral claims. I do not contend that it is 'good' that the likes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and others like them are not having judgment cast upon them. I contend it is simply a part of reality we ought to accept. I contend that it is an observed fact that when our bodies die, our conscience departs with it. I contend that that there is simply no credible evidence for any afterlife, much less an afterlife where people are judged and seperated into two categories. You cannot derive an ought from an is.

Whaaat! I’m not going to waste my poor mind on this whole word puzzle or whatever! I already have physics and chemistry to do! What I can do is to answer to this part later on after my exam is over.

Okay.

Not as cheap as the mocking and scoffing statements you pass! …it can’t beat you in that! Bwahahaaha!

What mocking and scoffing statements? I'm not the one who has declared victory over and over again. You have, since our 'discussion' been repeatedly condescending, patronising and pompous.

Now this marks the end of our discussion. I won’t be answering your posts as long as my papers are there but I look forward to more discussions in future. inshAllah!

Okay.

[CosmicPathos]

How can science have a problem with God? Not all atheists are scientists. Many professors of something as useless and obscure as History etc are atheists. They do not know the basics of science, even if they claim they do, they lack the mental faculties to actually make progress in scientific knowledge through their "brains." Yet they are atheists. Science has no say over God's existence. Just like how science has no say over morality. Or over love. Or over motivation. Or over time management. Or over all other non-tangible things.

[Lynx]

Maybe to wrap up the discussion started by the OP I will say that Science doesn't have a problem with God. If there was scientific evidence supporting God as there is evidence supporting the existence of Atoms or molecules or even Black Holes then that would be totally fine. Science is much more than just the 5 senses directly observing an alleged phenomenon and so the OP is attacking a position that is probably not held by anyone and thus the point of the OP is moot. Finally, some theists do claim that Science cannot detect God simply because God is supernatural and Science is methodological naturalism by definition; therefore, the study of God would fall into the realm of metaphysics.

[CosmicPathos]

^^ well we might have created different methods for studyign natural phenomenon, all the observations are analyzed by humans by one the 5 senses, mostly auditory and optic senses. Therefore, to be observable and to be understandable, observational data MUST be available in a form which is detectable by one of those 5 senses.

[Masuma]

@ Skuvau:

Just.Couldn’t.Resist! :mad:

I'm not the one who has declared victory over and over again. You have, since our 'discussion' been repeatedly condescending, patronising and pompous.

I see! You’ve said enough crap about me in my absence!:raging:
And I wasn’t declaring victory over and over again!!! Maybe you thought it so. But believe me, all I was doing is to bring focus around those parts. And honestly, I still think that your explanations and claims don’t hold. I just don’t SEE how your claims proved mine wrong…especially those where you didn’t give any credible explanation of how the killers would receive punishment if they saved themselves from the punishment in this world.

These verbal proclamations of victory are amusing.

That’s so low! :grumbling
I was just trying to draw your attention to the point! I thought that it would instigate you and you’ll pay particular attention to it and then you’ll try your best to bring a counter argument and………okay, okay, I do admit it was a flop idea :D but just look what foul and insulting color you gave to it!

I do not contend that it is 'good' that the likes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and others like them are not having judgment cast upon them. I contend it is simply a part of reality we ought to accept.

At least it’s making you think about it :statisfie …though your explanation is just one of a big sadistic one and is very unjust whereas the world is ruled by One who is the most Just, Strict in taking account!

My disbelief in an afterlife demonstrates my point. I don't accept Islam as true. I don't accept that there is a test going on, and therefore there are people subject to this test that are unaware of its relevance or even existence. Which was my original point (that you claim to have nulled).

And again brother, you can reject as much as you want that there is a “test” and its reckoning in the hereafter but still it won’t change a thing! The test is there and people are aware of it but the only thing is that they refuse to accept it!

And

Yes. There is no credible evidence of life existing after death. All evidence indicates that our existence is entirely dependent on our bodies. Whilst this may come across to you as somewhat nihilistic, it is an observed reality. Your confusion over this issue is a projection of your steadfast perspective that all morals have a foundation in reality. You then project this perspective onto my world view and then question how it is consistent.

Well of course it takes “Faith” to realize the truth that “THERE IS AN AFTERLIFE”. Our existence is not for just the few years of this life but we’ll be judged for our deeds and then will have a life for eternity! I’m trying to make you understand this but you keep on rejecting. So I leave it on Allah to decide…just trying my best to fulfill my duty which my Raab enjoined on me.

(Its just that when the day of Resurrection comes and you see Him in His utmost Glory and then your eyes get open and you realize that yes! It was true! I was told of this before! Then on that day, you bear witness to Allah that you were told of this before! The message did reach to you!)

But for now, Allah is enough for a Witness!!!

I know how hard it can be for people to accept truth. That’s why Allah has told us to keep striving and calling people to His way. I’ll keep trying to give you people the message of Allah no matter how much you dislike it!

Allah says in Quran:

“Invite all to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them and reason with them in ways that are best and most gracious”.
(Chapter 16, Verse 125)

So I’ll just do whatever He says.

You type like an older poster I remember from another forum…In fact, you have the same avatar as he did. Are you Raziel?

Of course not! But good to know I’ve a twin brother. :D LOL!

Now I leave you with a prayer that may Allah open your heart! May He show you the truth and the right way! Ameen!

No matter how much you deny His existence, He is unaffected by it. You only do harm to your own souls. Allah is worthy of all praise, the Creator of heavens and earth; Who encompasses all things! He is the Most Merciful, the Most Gracious!

Allahu Akbar!

[Missinglinks]

^^ well we might have created different methods for studyign natural phenomenon, all the observations are analyzed by humans by one the 5 senses, mostly auditory and optic senses. Therefore, to be observable and to be understandable, observational data MUST be available in a form which is detectable by one of those 5 senses.

This is exactly the problem with you guys, you use the 5 senses; sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste.. and forget to use your sixth sense THE BRAINS...

observational data MUST be available in a form which is detectable by one of those 5 senses.

IR light is not seen by any of the senses rather you need aparature. The light of the stars are detectable by one of our 5 senses, yet they might be not existing for a long time ago, so you're detecting with your 5 senses something wich doesn't exist, since the light has to travel so far away!!!! Moreover, most of the things in universe wich we haven't discovered (yet) do exist... There are even some things wich we know they are and detect, but we don't know how it is possible, so it is detectable but not understandable.. think fo instance the assumption of black materie in the universe.. some stars are rotating so fast among their centre, that they just have to shoot out of their orbit, yet they don't.. so this is still a mysterie to scientists, and most things... like Einstein said: We are in a huge library, with many books, and each time we learn to read(decode) a little bit of that enormous library...(or something siilar to this).. so your whole post is illogical and not according to reality

[Missinglinks]

so you're detecting with your 5 senses something wich doesn't exist
with this I mean the star... you're thinking its there yet it isn't...

reminds me of a story by the way:

ath-Thahabee mentions from al-Muzanee that he said: “I knew that if anyone could rid me of a troubling concern about an issue of tawheed, it would be ash-Shaafi’ee. So I went to him while he was in a mosque in Egypt. When I kneeled in front of him, I said, ‘I am troubled about a certain issue of tawheed. I know that no one knows as much as you, so what do you say about this?’ ”

He became angry and said, ‘Do you know where you are?’
I said, ‘Yes.’
He said, ‘This is the place where Allaah drowned Pharoah. Has it reached you that the Messenger of Allaah was ordered to ask about that?’
I said, ‘No.’
He said, ‘Have the Companions spoken about it?’
I said, ‘No.’
He said, ‘Do you know how many stars are in the sky?’
I said, ‘No.’
He said, ‘So you don’t even know about one planet – its type or the time and place of its appearance and disappearance?’
I said, ‘No.’

He said, “So there is something from the creation that you see with your own eyes that you do not even know anything about, yet you speak about the Knowledge of the Creator?’
Then he asked me a question about ablution, and I erred in my response.
So he explained it from four different angles (and asked me about them), and I was not correct in any of my responses.

So he said, ‘So you leave alone the knowledge of something which you are in need of five times a day, and instead you burden yourself with the knowledge of the Creator? When this (kind of thing) comes to your mind, then remember the statement of Allaah the Exalted,
“And your God is One God; there is no true god besides Him. He is the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy. Verily in the creation of the heavens and the earth…” [Surah Al-Baqarah 2:163-164]

So use the creation as a proof for (the Greatness of) the Creator, and do not burden yourself with what is beyond your understanding.”
[Siyar A’laamin-Nubalaa‘ (10/31)]

[CosmicPathos]

^^ lol man, you are attacking me while I am trying to support you guys here. :p

Regarding IR, yes we cannot see IR. But we can see IR spectrum by decoding it into visible spectrum or by decoding it into a graphical form by the help of a spectrophotometer! The light gathered from stars is usually IR emission or absorption spectra. We can observe which wavelengths were absorbed or emitted because they are transformed into a format which can be sensed by 5 senses.

[Missinglinks]

^^ lol man, you are attacking me while I am trying to support you guys here. :p

yeah sorry for that, mistake of mine... may Allah forgive me.. I thought mad scientist!

[Skavau]

I see! You’ve said enough crap about me in my absence!

If by "in your absence" you mean directly to you, on a thread that you are posting on sure. I wouldn't call it "crap" however. It is an observation of your personality.

And I wasn’t declaring victory over and over again!!! Maybe you thought it so. But believe me, all I was doing is to bring focus around those parts.

If declaring quite proudly over and over again that your arguments are sublime, and mine do not prove anything with emoticons to follow does not constitute some form of pomposit - what does?

And honestly, I still think that your explanations and claims don’t hold. I just don’t SEE how your claims proved mine wrong…

I haven't been attempting to disprove any claims that you have made, more I have been specifically defending my perspective. I did initially make 3 points as to why the claim that life is a test for the afterlife is incoherent and unfair but we are now so far beyond those points now that (due to you going off-topic and asking me silly questions) that I am in the position where I am responding to your claims about my beliefs.

especially those where you didn’t give any credible explanation of how the killers would receive punishment if they saved themselves from the punishment in this world.

They wouldn't. I've already answered this. It is not, and has never been my claim that punishment exists or can exist in some supernatural form after life. You are not even bothering to read what I say.

At least it’s making you think about it …though your explanation is just one of a big sadistic one and is very unjust whereas the world is ruled by One who is the most Just, Strict in taking account!

I have been through this ridiculous argument about justice in the 'afterlife' in a materialistic world view before with someone else on another forum. I am no more thinking about it anymore now than I was then. At any rate, sadistic? Do you even know what sadistic means? Sadism means someone who gains enjoyment at the suffering of others. When have I said that I enjoy the suffering of others?

And yes, nature is unjust.

And again brother, you can reject as much as you want that there is a “test” and its reckoning in the hereafter but still it won’t change a thing! The test is there and people are aware of it but the only thing is that they refuse to accept it!

I not only reject it - I don't believe in it.

Well of course it takes “Faith” to realize the truth that “THERE IS AN AFTERLIFE”. Our existence is not for just the few years of this life but we’ll be judged for our deeds and then will have a life for eternity! I’m trying to make you understand this but you keep on rejecting. So I leave it on Allah to decide…just trying my best to fulfill my duty which my Raab enjoined on me.

If by "trying to make me understand this" you are repeating your claims ad infinitum to me and hoping they will stick, then yes. You are. However perhaps you should consider working on empirical evidence or reasoned argument to fill your point rather than mere bravado.

As for the rest here, I'm not interested in being preached out. It is complete white noise to me.

[Lynx]

^^ well we might have created different methods for studyign natural phenomenon, all the observations are analyzed by humans by one the 5 senses, mostly auditory and optic senses. Therefore, to be observable and to be understandable, observational data MUST be available in a form which is detectable by one of those 5 senses.

yeh i totally agree. i just meant we don;t use the 5 senses in the narrow way the OP makes it out to be in order to do science.

[Masuma]

If declaring quite proudly over and over again that your arguments are sublime, and mine do not prove anything with emoticons to follow does not constitute some form of pomposit - what does?

I’ve already answered to that before!

Do you even know what sadistic means? Sadism means someone who gains enjoyment at the suffering of others. When have I said that I enjoy the suffering of others?

Yeah of course! You are right here. I thought that the word has to do something with “sad” or “hopelessness” or... never mind! :D

I not only reject it - I don't believe in it.

Okay.

So this tells me about your personality as Allah has mentioned a fact in Holy Quran about people like you.



“As to those who reject Faith, it is same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).”:cry:

(Chapter 2, Verses 6-7)



I still pray that may Allah not make you one of these! Ameen!:cry:

All praise is to ALLAH!

[Masuma]

@ Brother mad_scientist and brother Missinglinks:

Asalamu alikum Wa rehmatullahi Wa Barakatuh!:statisfie

^^ lol man, you are attacking me while I am trying to support you guys here.

yeah sorry for that, mistake of mine... may Allah forgive me.. I thought mad scientist!

:giggling: Lol!

^^ well we might have created different methods for studyign natural phenomenon, all the observations are analyzed by humans by one the 5 senses, mostly auditory and optic senses. Therefore, to be observable and to be understandable, observational data MUST be available in a form which is detectable by one of those 5 senses.

Do we have any observational data present with us to analyze the biggest reality in nature that God exists? :-\ I don’t know. Maybe it is there. Yeah we can say that existence of God can be proven through His creation. Believers see God’s art in His creation. But do we have the direct methods or proofs, any observational data which is detectable by one of our 5 senses? :(

It seems that the indirect methods of proving God’s existence are insufficient for the Atheists. So if we Muslims can get them direct proofs, then maybe they’ll believe.:statisfie


And Allah knows best!

[Skavau]

I’ve already answered to that before!

Yes. Very badly.

So this tells me about your personality as Allah has mentioned a fact in Holy Quran about people like you.

You claim to know my entire personality based on the fact that I reject and disbelieve in the concept of a hereafter?

It seems that the indirect methods of proving God’s existence are insufficient for the Atheists. So if we Muslims can get them direct proofs, then maybe they’ll believe.

Well, logical fallacies remain - logical fallacies.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Yes and no.

I think that the answer would be that we have a problem with science
because we associate to it things which it does not have.

It is like speaking to a wall. It has no real content. Science is like a
machine that provides us answers about physical things or things that
can be measured.

The problem begins when people are confused and start thinking that
this machine can tell them answers about questions it cannot.

For instance - before answering science really big questions we have
to understand that science cannot answer questions which for
us require no proof.

Can science prove that you are alive? No.

Do scientists know why an apple falls of a tree (contrary
to how)? No.

So, why should we put so much attention to this anyway? :)

I think this whole issue of science vs. religion is a whole big
deception and we should stand against it. Because as far as
I see it science is just a machine which is at best man made.