What it would take for me to believe

[TheRationalizer]

This thread is not to argue whether there are any miracles in the Quran, nor is it to argue whether or not there is a god...

There are really two separate issues. The issue of whether our universe was created by a conscious act, and if it was then also the issue of whether or not this consciousness has sent us instructions (theism) or is non intervening (deism.)

I'll start from the bottom up.

RELIGION

Why I don't accept a religion

What I observe in the world though is that many people make up many religions, it still happens today - I think Muslims will agree that Mormonism is man made. The technique used is that an individual will claim that god is speaking through them (directly or indirectly) and that on that authority everyone else should listen to them. When asked to present evidence of supernatural intervention they implore people to "believe out of faith" and "to demand proof is wicked and arrogant" - because natural beings cannot provide supernatural evidence.

Keeping in mind that this is the standard strategy by which humans create religion it is therefore impossible for me to believe any religion that came about in a similar fashion. It makes no sense to me that god would create a religion by utilising the exact same techniques of fraudsters.

What would it take me to accept a religion?

If I had opened the Quran and the first thing I saw was 299,792,458 I would today be a Muslim. This is the speed of light in a vacuum. Although there are alternative extraordinary explanations as to how this information could have arrived

God told Muhammad
An alien told Muhammad
A time traveller told Muhammad

I wouldn't really see any way of deciding which was the case, but the fact that the rest of the book claimed to be authored by the creator of the universe I think I could give the benefit of the doubt and accept it was from god :) Apart from knowing the speed of light in a vacuum it would also demonstrate knowledge of the future, because the number is presented in kilometres per hour, a unit of measurement which was not created at the time - so it would be a kind of "two birds with one stone" scenario.

GOD

Why I don't accept there is a god
To determine the cause of something we gather evidence. In nature this is simple as we have many instances from which to gather information, but with the universe we currently only have one to gather data from. We cannot see how this universe started, if it is the first universe, the only universe, and so on.

The answer to the question "How did the universe get here" for me is a resounding "I do not know", and I'd rather have no answer than the wrong answer. Not knowing is acceptable, accepting answers as truth without evidence ("truth without proof") is unacceptable.

For example, it's easy for someone to conclude that the universe was created, but why does this automatically mean it was created by "god"? There is no more or less evidence to suggest the origin of the universe was

One god
Two gods
Lots of gods
Another universe
Energy from some other dimension
etc

And if we say that whatever created it should be named "God" because god is a role rather than a being then we have no more evidence to suggest that

God was a conscious being rather than some natural process that creates universes.
God gave up its own existence in order to create the universe (the ultimate selfless sacrifice)

So with a lack of religious conviction there is no reason for me to say there is/isn't a god, or what the attributes of such a god should be. My atheism is merely a reflection of having a complete lack of conclusive evidence. All we have is an argument from ignorance - "I don't know how the universe got here.....therefore (insert religious belief of your choice)".


What would it take me to believe in a conscious creator of the universe?

If a being appeared in front of me and resurrected the dead body of my grandmother who said "Accept that this is god" I would accept that this is a very powerful being, but I would not also automatically accept it was responsible for creating the universe. As Arthur C Clarke once put it "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

The only evidence I can think of that would convince me that a concious being created the universe (if I have no evidence of a credible religion) would be a message within the creation itself. There might be a way to embed a message within the fabric of the universe after the fact, but I'd expect there would be a way of determining that any slight alteration to the message would result in an infeasible universe.

If we were to find a universal law of physic for example, and it was based entirely on a binary pattern which translated to "I am the creator" then I would accept intelligence created our universe. If the message went as far as to say "I am the creator, and (religious leader of your choice) was my messenger" then needless to say I would accept that religion too.


What about you?

My position is that I have no preference as to what the truth is, I only care that I possess it. Given the right level of evidence to match the incredibility of the claim I will accept anything.

Are you also more interested in possessing the truth than you are satisfying your preference for what format the truth should take? If so, what kind of evidence do you think would convince you that

Atheists
A: The universe was created by intelligence
B: This intelligence has sent us instructions in the form of a religion

Theists
A: You are following a false religion.
B: There is no god.

PS: In the interests of interesting discussion I'm only interested from hearing from atheists and theists who do not answer that there is nothing that could convince them that they are wrong.

[Zafran]

what would you say about your past ancestors that you have no historical or empircal proof of? they clearly didnt exist as we have no evidence of them actually existing? right? You could have came out the table or a chair, an animal?

anyway
A - so what religion is right and why?
B - Except God.

[TheRationalizer]

what would you say about your past ancestors that you have no historical or empircal proof of? they clearly didnt exist as we have no evidence of them actually existing? right?

Thanks for your thoughts.

If I were to suddenly find myself standing here with no knowledge and I was the only person in existence I was aware of then you would be correct, however we currently have a sample size of over 6 thousand million people - and as far as we can see all of them exist because they had a male and a female parent :)

anyway
A - so what religion is right and why?
B - Except God.

Sorry, I didn't understand.

[Zafran]

Thanks for your thoughts.

If I were to suddenly find myself standing here with no knowledge and I was the only person in existence I was aware of then you would be correct, however we currently have a sample size of over 6 thousand million people - and as far as we can see all of them exist because they had a male and a female parent :)

that doesnt explain who the ancestors were - sample size of 6 thousand million people just shows that a sample of six thousand million poeple - It doesnt answer the question who the ancestors were? How do you know that they had a male and female parent - did you see them - do you have any historical recordings of who the ancestors were?

Sorry, I didn't understand

I was answering the question A and B.

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

[TheRationalizer]

that doesnt explain who the ancestors were - sample size of 6 thousand million just shows that and sample of six thousand million poeple - It doesnt answer the question who the ancestors were? How do you know that they had a male and female parent - did you see them - do you have any historical recordings of who the ancestors were?

It's not just everyone alive now. Most people know their parents, and many knew the grandparents too. That's how they know they had ancestors. We see it occur in nature every day. I have no idea what your point is, sorry.

[Zafran]

It's not just everyone alive now. Most people know their parents, and many knew the grandparents too. That's how they know they had ancestors. We see it occur in nature every day. I have no idea what your point is, sorry.

Yep you probably could find out your ancestors times 10 or further back - but if I asked you ancestors times 1000, or even million you'll probably have no idea who they were as you have no proof of there existence. So they clearly didnt exist?

[TheRationalizer]

Yep you probably could find out your ancestors times 10 or further back - but if I asked you ancestors times 1000, or even million you'll probably have no idea who they were as you have no proof of there existence. So they clearly didnt exist?

The observed reality is that humans are born from having male and female parents, therefore it is the correct default position. I cannot name more than X generations back that is true, but seeing as we have a massive sample size to draw from and no exceptions to the rule making it the default position there is no reason to assume anything other than the default position is accurate. In addition to this we have DNA evidence showing how humans are all related and how humans migrated from the South to other parts of the world.

I still don't know why you are asking me this. My question was after all asking what it would take atheists/theists to change their minds on their current positions. I have already explained what it will take for me to change my mind - so what about you?

[Zafran]

The observed reality is that humans are born from having male and female parents, therefore it is the correct default position. I cannot name more than X generations back that is true, but seeing as we have a massive sample size to draw from and no exceptions to the rule making it the default position there is no reason to assume anything other than the default position is accurate. In addition to this we have DNA evidence showing how humans are all related and how humans migrated from the South to other parts of the world.

I still don't know why you are asking me this. My question was after all asking what it would take atheists/theists to change their minds on their current positions. I have already explained what it will take for me to change my mind - so what about you?

Thats not the default position - The default position is you dont know - Its like saying the sun will rise the next day because it has risen in past - It suffers from the problem of induction. Furthermore DNA evidence of how many humans? clearly not all?

Ultimatly your putting faith that your past ancestors did exist because of some DNA evidence of a few million thousand people.

Its based on belief.

[جوري]

Why I don't accept a religion

question is why should anyone care? The road to theism or atheism is a solo journey not a communal effort. You seem so irresolute about your choice that you tabulate your objections as if irrevocably factual and expect that everyone should draw from your faulty premise simply because you conjectured it.

interests of interesting discussion I'm only interested

that says a mouthful about where this discussion is headed.

good luck with all of that!

[TheRationalizer]

Thats not the default position - The default position is you dont know - Its like saying the sun will rise the next day because it has risen in past - It suffers from the problem of induction.

The prediction that the Sun will rise the next day is not based merely on the fact that it has happened every day in the past (inductive) but in addition an understanding of why the Sun will rise the next day (deductive.)

Ultimatly your putting faith that your past ancestors did exist because of some DNA evidence of a few million thousand people.
Its based on belief.

So what are you saying? My ancestors only go back as far as I can trace my family tree?

[Zafran]

The prediction that the Sun will rise the next day is not based merely on the fact that it has happened every day in the past (inductive) but in addition an understanding of why the Sun will rise the next day (deductive.)

so why will it rise the next day and how do you know for sure? You'll have to show me how this is deductive?

So what are you saying? My ancestors only go back as far as I can trace my family tree?

Do you think thats absurd? I mean there is no proof any further outside the tree? we just dont know? do you agree?

[aadil77]

It seems all you're after is scientific discoveries in a book which teachings mankind about faith

you say:

If I had opened the Quran and the first thing I saw was 299,792,458 I would today be a Muslim

I highly doubt that, prophet Muhammad split the moon in half when a group of disbelievers asked for a miracle in order for them to accept islam - they still did not believe

[Mr.President]

question is why should anyone care? The road to theism or atheism is a solo journey not a communal effort. You seem so irresolute about your choice that you tabulate your objections as if irrevocably factual and expect that everyone should draw from your faulty premise simply because you conjectured it.


that says a mouthful about where this discussion is headed.

good luck with all of that!

a bold full stop

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with everyone),

Well, I had a nice long reply refuting the Athiest thing and putting in a very good arguement as to why a man couldn't have produced the Quran, then I accidently kicked my wire and that's it. What a shame.

Anyways, if your down the road to Science, here's some encouragement for you -

The essential and definite element of my conversion to Islam was the Qur’an. I began to study it before my conversion with the critical spirit of a Western intellectual. There are certain verses of this book, the Qur’an, revealed more than thirteen centuries ago, which teach exactly the same notions as the most modern scientific researches do. This definitely converted me. [Ali Selman Benoist, France, Doctor of Medicine]

I have read the Sacred Scriptures of every religion; nowhere have I found what I encountered in Islam: perfection. The Holy Qur’an, compared to any other scripture I have read, is like the Sun compared to that of a match. I firmly believe that anybody who reads the Word of Allah with a mind that is not completely closed to Truth, will become a Muslim. [Saifuddin Dirk Walter Mosig]

I am impressed that how remarkably some of the ancient writings seem to correspond to modern and recent Astronomy. There may well have to be something beyond what we understand as ordinary human experience to account for the writings that we have seen. [Professor Armstrong, Scientist works at NASA]

It is difficult to imagine that this type of knowledge was existing at that time, around 1400 years back. May be some of the things they have simple idea about, but do describe those things in great detail is very difficult. So, this is definitely not a simple human knowledge. [Professor Durga Rao]


There's alot more quotations that I had, that's lost now -.- For me, the Science was enough, but I wanted to have no doubts, so I studied deep into the source(Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)) life and it all connected.

[Muhaba]

This thread is not to argue whether there are any miracles in the Quran, nor is it to argue whether or not there is a god...

There are really two separate issues. The issue of whether our universe was created by a conscious act, and if it was then also the issue of whether or not this consciousness has sent us instructions (theism) or is non intervening (deism.)

I'll start from the bottom up.

RELIGION

Why I don't accept a religion

What I observe in the world though is that many people make up many religions, it still happens today - I think Muslims will agree that Mormonism is man made. The technique used is that an individual will claim that god is speaking through them (directly or indirectly) and that on that authority everyone else should listen to them. When asked to present evidence of supernatural intervention they implore people to "believe out of faith" and "to demand proof is wicked and arrogant" - because natural beings cannot provide supernatural evidence.

Keeping in mind that this is the standard strategy by which humans create religion it is therefore impossible for me to believe any religion that came about in a similar fashion. It makes no sense to me that god would create a religion by utilising the exact same techniques of fraudsters.

God always gave his prophets miracles to prove that they were really sent by God. For example the miracles given to Prophet Moses (AS). God also gave Prophet Muhammad (SAW) miracles one of them being the Quran, which is a book no one can imitate. Additionally, the Prophet (SAW) foretold many future events, many of which happened / are happening now.

Islam is also not like other man-made religions like mormonism. Islam is practical unlike mormonism which doesn't allow it's members to use modern stuff, like a car. Islam is also not like satanic / pagan religions that require human sacrifice, etc.

What would it take me to accept a religion?

If I had opened the Quran and the first thing I saw was 299,792,458 I would today be a Muslim. This is the speed of light in a vacuum. Although there are alternative extraordinary explanations as to how this information could have arrived

God told Muhammad
An alien told Muhammad
A time traveller told Muhammad

I wouldn't really see any way of deciding which was the case, but the fact that the rest of the book claimed to be authored by the creator of the universe I think I could give the benefit of the doubt and accept it was from god :) Apart from knowing the speed of light in a vacuum it would also demonstrate knowledge of the future, because the number is presented in kilometres per hour, a unit of measurement which was not created at the time - so it would be a kind of "two birds with one stone" scenario.

There are scientific facts in the Quran, for example the big bang theory. The Islamic law system also proves that Islam is a religion from God, not from human source, since noone could come up with such a complete and practical law system which is as applicable today as it was 1400 years ago, especially not someone living in a lawless desert community.

GOD

Why I don't accept there is a god
To determine the cause of something we gather evidence. In nature this is simple as we have many instances from which to gather information, but with the universe we currently only have one to gather data from. We cannot see how this universe started, if it is the first universe, the only universe, and so on.

The answer to the question "How did the universe get here" for me is a resounding "I do not know", and I'd rather have no answer than the wrong answer. Not knowing is acceptable, accepting answers as truth without evidence ("truth without proof") is unacceptable.

For example, it's easy for someone to conclude that the universe was created, but why does this automatically mean it was created by "god"? There is no more or less evidence to suggest the origin of the universe was

One god
Two gods
Lots of gods
Another universe
Energy from some other dimension
etc

The fact that everything in the universe is completely compatible with everything else and there isn't any chaos shows that there is only one God. The fact that the universe is organized shows that there is a God.

And if we say that whatever created it should be named "God" because god is a role rather than a being then we have no more evidence to suggest that

God was a conscious being rather than some natural process that creates universes.
God gave up its own existence in order to create the universe (the ultimate selfless sacrifice)

If God had given up His existence to create the universe, the universe would've fallen apart. It wouldn't be organized. can something be organized all by itself, without someone continuously causing it to be so? what would happen to a library if there were no librarian to take care of it? what happens to a garden when noone takes care of it?

[TheRationalizer]

Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with everyone),
Well, I had a nice long reply refuting the Athiest thing and putting in a very good arguement as to why a man couldn't have produced the Quran, then I accidently kicked my wire and that's it. What a shame.

I hate it when that happens!

Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with everyone),
Anyways, if your down the road to Science, here's some encouragement for you -
[Ali Selman Benoist, France, Doctor of Medicine]
[Saifuddin Dirk Walter Mosig]
[Professor Armstrong, Scientist works at NASA]
[Professor Durga Rao]

Those are just appeals to authority. I didn't want to know why some other people chose their current stance :)

For me, the Science was enough

For me this is what attracted me to the Quran in the first place. I went from "Believe without proof because faith is a virtue" to thinking "Hang on, this makes sense, god WOULD leave prove that religion X is the only one that is not fake".

I read the Quran and the miracles looked quite impressive. At first I was quite convinced, but I felt that I would want to convince others too and in order to do that I had to be able to answer every "Yes but" they might throw at me, so I looked into each one by looking up a bit of history etc. Every miracle claim I looked at fell flat. By this time I was past the "Believe without proof" phase of my life (thanks Quran miracle claimants!) and finding a lack of proof in the Quran ended up being an atheist. Now there's irony for you :-)

Which miracle claim do you find the most convincing? Maybe it is one I am unaware of.

[TheRationalizer]

It seems all you're after is scientific discoveries in a book which teachings mankind about faith

Not scientific discoveries, proof. Every man made religion on Earth implores people to believe out of faith alone, and many people fall for it. For example, Mormonism is a faith based religion with millions of followers. All I want is for god to make it objectively clear which religion I should follow....if any.

I highly doubt that, prophet Muhammad split the moon in half when a group of disbelievers asked for a miracle in order for them to accept islam - they still did not believe

I cannot accept that Muhammad split the Moon in half. Approximately 50% of the planet can see the Moon at the same time as the inhabitants of Mecca. If the Moon had been split in half then millions of people would have seen it, not just a few people standing next to Muhammad. This would have included many people from literate countries such as China who have a good recorded history.

Where is all the corroborative evidence?

I think this is far more likely to be something like a solar eclipse, which is why so many people would have dismissed it.

[TheRationalizer]

God always gave his prophets miracles to prove that they were really sent by God.

So why do the people of the time deserve proof but not me?

Islam is also not like other man-made religions like mormonism. Islam is practical unlike mormonism which doesn't allow it's members to use modern stuff, like a car

Are you sure? That sounds more like the Amish to me.

There are scientific facts in the Quran, for example the big bang theory.

The big band theory is not in the Quran. The verse which says that the Earth and Heavens were once one but then torn apart is merely different wording for the creation story in the Torah (Genesis 1) which says that at first there was just water and god separated the water into the heavens and the sea and then made land appear in the sea.

The Islamic law system also proves that Islam is a religion from God, not from human source, since noone could come up with such a complete and practical law system which is as applicable today as it was 1400 years ago, especially not someone living in a lawless desert community.

Even if I agreed that Shariah law is flawless (which I don't) it wouldn't be proof of divine origin.

The fact that everything in the universe is completely compatible with everything else and there isn't any chaos shows that there is only one God.

Or two gods which agree with each other 100%.

The fact that the universe is organized shows that there is a God. If God had given up His existence to create the universe, the universe would've fallen apart.

Are you saying that god is incapable of creating a universe which will not fall apart if he isn't there to keep control of it?

[Saad17]

The big band theory is not in the Quran. The verse which says that the Earth and Heavens were once one but then torn apart is merely different wording for the creation story in the Torah (Genesis 1) which says that at first there was just water and god separated the water into the heavens and the sea and then made land appear in the sea.

You sounds like you KNOW it is copied off the Torah.

Or two gods which agree with each other 100%.

So whats the difference between the two gods? I mean if a Muslim would claim that Allah is everywhere in the 10-roomed house than that mean there are 10 bodies of Allah in each room but that doesn't mean there are 10 gods. By two gods we mean two different gods.

Are you saying that god is incapable of creating a universe which will not fall apart if he isn't there to keep control of it?

Are you saying that god can't create a universe and live ?

[TheRationalizer]

You sounds like you KNOW it is copied off the Torah.

I am saying that anyone at the time who had ever heard the first few sentences of Genesis could have said exactly the same thing.

So whats the difference between the two gods? I mean if a Muslim would claim that Allah is everywhere in the 10-roomed house than that mean there are 10 bodies of Allah in each room but that doesn't mean there are 10 gods. By two gods we mean two different gods.

Yes, there is no reason to look at the universe and say "It MUST be created by ONE god". How would you tell the difference between a universe created by one god and a universe created by two gods which reached an agreement on how it should be made?

Are you saying that god can't create a universe and live ?

No, I am asking how you would tell the difference between a universe which god created and lived, and a universe which god ceased to exist in order to make it. You can't tell the difference just by looking at the universe.

[Saad17]

I am saying that anyone at the time who had ever heard the first few sentences of Genesis could have said exactly the same thing.

Now thats better.

Yes, there is no reason to look at the universe and say "It MUST be created by ONE god". How would you tell the difference between a universe created by one god and a universe created by two gods which reached an agreement on how it should be made?

What I'm saying is that If your saying that there are two Allah who thinks exactly the same then they are ONE.

Well then there is the thing that why are two gods sharing one universe and go make their own universe? Or do numbers (that there are two,three or five gods) even exists beyond this reality?

No, I am asking how you would tell the difference between a universe which god created and lived, and a universe which god ceased to exist in order to make it. You can't tell the difference just by looking at the universe.

Your statement is illogical, its like saying that a beggar produced million dollars and gave to the other people. If a god can't sustain himself then how can he make a self-sustaining universe? or rather more importantly how can a imperfect being (can't keep itself alive) can create a perfect creation (something that keeps itself alive).

[TheRationalizer]

Now thats better.

It's what I meant, I should have been more clear.

So, if many mortals at the time could have said the same thing without divine revelation does that mean we can agree that someone saying the meaning of these specific words is not proof of divine revelation?

What I'm saying is that If your saying that there are two Allah who thinks exactly the same then they are ONE.

I didn't say they think exactly the same, I said "two gods which reached an agreement".

Well then there is the thing that why are two gods sharing one universe and go make their own universe? Or do numbers (that there are two,three or five gods) even exists beyond this reality?

Your argument here seems to be "I don't know why two gods would exist, therefore there must be only one." I asked how you can conclude there is only 1 god just by looking at the universe.

Your statement is illogical, its like saying that a beggar produced million dollars and gave to the other people. If a god can't sustain himself then how can he make a self-sustaining universe? or rather more importantly how can a imperfect being (can't keep itself alive) can create a perfect creation (something that keeps itself alive).

I didn't say anything about being unable to sustain itself, god might have chosen to cease to exist for personal reasons which cannot comprehend. Maybe god thought that the universe would be a better place if there wasn't an ultimate dictator.

But then, how DO you conclude just by looking at a universe created 13.7 billion years ago that the creator is still alive?

[Saad17]

It's what I meant, I should have been more clear.

So, if many mortals at the time could have said the same thing without divine revelation does that mean we can agree that someone saying the meaning of these specific words is not proof of divine revelation?

True we could say that they are proof of divine revelation (well Torah was once the word of God) but if you say a person who is saying things in different fields and they are all coming true, thats something you can't ignore. This is how apparently Quran works , it makes itself authentic like an honest person who you would trust though of course I acknowledge the possibility of it failing about the things it doesn't prove but at least I have a good reason to follow the Quran of all things.

I didn't say they think exactly the same, I said "two gods which reached an agreement".

Could be but then I wouldn't consider them as different entities, they gotta dispute at one point to acknowledge they are two , not one planner(s).

Your argument here seems to be "I don't know why two gods would exist, therefore there must be only one." I asked how you can conclude there is only 1 god just by looking at the universe.

It is the ONE design that says that there is ONE master plan but my argument was that gods would be able to create their own universe rather than getting along over one universe.

I didn't say anything about being unable to sustain itself, god might have chosen to cease to exist for personal reasons which cannot comprehend. Maybe god thought that the universe would be a better place if there wasn't an ultimate dictator.

But everything does have a purpose , so we are trying to find that purpose which the the god did left when creating something like us who are constantly in need of someone in power.

But then, how DO you conclude just by looking at a universe created 13.7 billion years ago that the creator is still alive?

Well I don't have a good answer for that (for now) but the universe with its design and intelligent does prove the creator to be more of the one that would commit suicide.

[TheRationalizer]

True we could say that they are proof of divine revelation (well Torah was once the word of God)

For the sake of argument let's say I agree that the Torah is divine revelation. Any information within that book is now available to anyone who can read, and anyone who can be told something - which is just about everyone. So, if just about anyone can repeat information they have either read or heard then the act of repeating that information does not prove divine revelation does it?

Remember, in this case we are talking about those specific words (the Earth + Heavens were one and were torn apart) - not the entire Quran.

but if you say a person who is saying things in different fields and they are all coming true, thats something you can't ignore.

I am sure we can move onto this subject, you can present me with what these things are.

This is how apparently Quran works , it makes itself authentic like an honest person who you would trust

But you don't automatically trust everyone you meet, and you certainly don't automatically trust every religious book you read otherwise you'd lead a very confused life :-) First the person/book has to establish that trust.

though of course I acknowledge the possibility of it failing about the things it doesn't prove

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this sentence.

Could be but then I wouldn't consider them as different entities, they gotta dispute at one point to acknowledge they are two , not one planner(s).

Just because two entities are able to agree on something it doesn't make them a single entity.

It is the ONE design that says that there is ONE master plan

Yes, one plan, but that doesn't prove one god. The laptop I am currently typing on has one design.

but my argument was that gods would be able to create their own universe rather than getting along over one universe.

But your supposition that gods do not like to collaborate on designing universes isn't self evident. I still see no evidence from looking at the universe alone that it was created by a single god with a single plan rather than two gods who managed to agree on a single plan.

But everything does have a purpose

What is the purpose of a rock? Or a virus?

so we are trying to find that purpose which the the god did left when creating something like us who are constantly in need of someone in power.

I don't need someone in power. What I need is social employees who are paid a fair wage to empty my bins, provide my house with water, and ensure that anti-social people are dealt with. I need social coherence, not someone to rule over me.

But you see to feel that you *need* someone in power over you. Maybe that is why you have chosen a religion with an authority figure whereas other people choose a religion such as Buddhism which I think has no ultimate authority figure


Well I don't have a good answer for that (for now) but the universe with its design and intelligent does prove the creator to be more of the one that would commit suicide.[/QUOTE]

[Perseveranze]

I hate it when that happens!



Those are just appeals to authority. I didn't want to know why some other people chose their current stance :)



For me this is what attracted me to the Quran in the first place. I went from "Believe without proof because faith is a virtue" to thinking "Hang on, this makes sense, god WOULD leave prove that religion X is the only one that is not fake".

I read the Quran and the miracles looked quite impressive. At first I was quite convinced, but I felt that I would want to convince others too and in order to do that I had to be able to answer every "Yes but" they might throw at me, so I looked into each one by looking up a bit of history etc. Every miracle claim I looked at fell flat. By this time I was past the "Believe without proof" phase of my life (thanks Quran miracle claimants!) and finding a lack of proof in the Quran ended up being an atheist. Now there's irony for you :-)

Which miracle claim do you find the most convincing? Maybe it is one I am unaware of.

Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with you),

If you have knowledge you can argue with anyone. If your up for reading a good book I can give you a download link to, about a non-Muslim Scientist/Doctor who wanted to prove that the Torah/Bible/Quran are all not in sync with Science. The, findings are very remarkable, and the detail he gives and the reasonings aswell are really convincing. And this is comming from a non-Muslim source (which other Intellects have also made a book about) but this is the only one I've read so far.

So if your really willing, then let me know and I'll link you.

And if that doesn't convince you... Then who knows, maybe you need some time or something. Because it is always asked, "if the proof is there, why doesn't everyone convert", well it's just down to whether they open their hearts up or not. Not to mention, conversion to Islam is a massive life changer/adjuster for many, so they always try to look at it from a negative angle if they can.

"Those who do not know say, "Why does Allah not speak to us or there come to us a sign?" Thus spoke those before them like their words. Their hearts resemble each other. We have shown clearly the signs to a people who are certain [in faith]." - (2:18)

"And [even] if We opened to them a gate from the heaven and they continued therein to ascend, They would say, "Our eyes have only been dazzled. Rather, we are a people affected by magic." (15:14-15)

"If their aversion is hard on you, then if you were able to seek a tunnel in the ground or a ladder to the sky, so that you may bring them a sign. And had Allah willed, He could have gathered them together unto true guidance, so be not you one of those who are Al-Jahilun (the ignorant). Quran" (6:35)

Even with me, I was an Athiest like you, I wanted to clear every single doubt, so I looked at everything, the Prophet(pbuh)'s life, the Quranic text in detail, the miracles etc. And Mashallah everything connected so well, leaving no room for doubts.

Ahh man, my other reply was very good, talked about everything, I should be more careful with wires.

EDIT: I read your other post about the Torah thing, you really should read this book, there's actually a big difference between what the Torah says about Creationism and what the Quran says. One is in error with Science, the other isn't. Like I said, this is why you need knowledge, did I not act as you did if not worst before I dug deep for truth?

[TheRationalizer]

Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with you)

Wa alayka salam :-)

If your up for reading a good book I can give you a download link to, about a non-Muslim Scientist/Doctor who wanted to prove that the Torah/Bible/Quran are all not in sync with Science.

It's not the one by Maurice Bucaille is it?

So if your really willing, then let me know and I'll link you.

Please do give me the link. I have a tight work deadline at the moment but should hopefully get to look at it in the near future, assuming it's not the Maurice Bucaille one that is :-)

And if that doesn't convince you... Then who knows, maybe you need some time or something. Because it is always asked, "if the proof is there, why doesn't everyone convert", well it's just down to whether they open their hearts up or not.

It would be utterly wrong to say that when I read the Quran I was either closed minded or had a closed heart. I wanted it to be true. I think the reason why people don't convert when presented with the evidence is because the evidence you present is subjective. The problem is, the evidence for all religions is subjective.

Not to mention, conversion to Islam is a massive life changer/adjuster for many, so they always try to look at it from a negative angle if they can.

I was already living the life before I read the Quran.

EDIT: I read your other post about the Torah thing, you really should read this book, there's actually a big difference between what the Torah says about Creationism and what the Quran says. One is in error with Science, the other isn't. Like I said, this is why you need knowledge, did I not act as you did if not worst before I dug deep for truth?

I wasn't talking about the entire creation story. I was pointing out that the phrase claimed to be "the big bang miracle in the Quran" is merely a paraphrasing of a small part of the creation story in the Torah, and that anyone at the time could have said the same thing without divine intervention.

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Well I just checked and that is the author, have you read the book and didn't find it any helpful or anything? I could try to find books by other Scientists if you like?

And yeah, the Creation is what I was talking about, because the Torah/Bible have errors in it, whilst the Quran is Scientifically deemed correct. People also talk about the Embroylogy system first brought by the Greeks, however even the Greeks theory is incorrect, where as the Quran's version is by Science deemed correct. Not to mention the Quran is deemed as fact, whereas the Greeks only theorized it.

Did you not ask the question then, how if (a man) made the Quran could tell the difference between what part is right and what part is wrong?

Also, what about the retraction part? Science believes that one day the Universe will stop expanding (as the Big Bang created) and eventually retract, this is mentioned in the Quran, is this mentioned in the Torah or Bible? What about the mention of the gasoues state of the Universe? I don't know about you, but there's alot here which doesn't explain why a man would suddenly mention this stuff, not only differ from other scriptures but add new things, which today prove to be right.

I was already living the life before I read the Quran.

Praying 5 times a Day? ...

Ps. I don't mean to say that your heart is closed or anything. The Quran stresses alot, that people use their intellects

The worst of all creatures, including all that walk, creep or crawl on the earth, are those who are not sensible, reasonable, and rational (who do not use their Aql or intelligence) [la yaaqiloon] [8:22].

Don't you think the whole reflection/ponder/use Intellect is stressed for a good reason? 1.7 billion people in the world accept all the Science in the Quran (many upon many non-Muslims do too), and you can't really say that all 1.7 billion are brainwashed, many used their own intellects and came to the conclusion that it could not have been man made.

Islam is really the only religion I can think of in which people solely convert because of it's Science, and by that intellects such as Doctors, Mathematicians, Scientists convert to it.

Surely they find something in it that you may not have as of yet. One thing I am very convinced off, when you round it all up, it's just impossible to explain how a man in the 7th century could've in the span of 23 years produced all of this.

I'd recommend you read this (it shows Muhammad(pbuh)'s own scientific knowledge and compares that of the Quran, it just doesn't match mate) - http://www.xyapx.com/ziggyzag/morepr...nspiration.php

[TheRationalizer]

Well I just checked and that is the author, have you read the book and didn't find it any helpful or anything?

I own that book. Maurice Bucaille is far from scientific in his approach. For example at one point he discusses Pharaoh Merneptah who he argues most closely fits the role of "Faruun". He performs an autopsy on the body and then writes (paraphrased)

"Although the results of the lab tests are not back yet I think they will confirm that the body has water damage and therefore died by drowning"

He is forming a conclusion based on lab results he has not yet received, that is very unscientific and very unprofessional too. But anyway, he says that signs of water damage would prove the Quran right. Then in his next book which was written after the lab results came in he concedes that the lab results show "no sign of water damage" - proving that his first analysis was utterly wrong; but does this now prove the Quran wrong? Of course not, but rather than saying "It neither corroborates nor falsifies the Quran" he then goes on to say (again paraphrased)

"The lack of water damage to the body shows that if the body was in water then it was not in there for very long, therefore proving the story in the Quran is true".

So, if the body has water damage then the Quran is true, and if it doesn't have water damage then the Quran is true. That's hardly objective writing, is it?

I could try to find books by other Scientists if you like?

If you know of any, yes please. I hope though the next one you present won't be "The developing human: By Dr Keith Moore" because that is equally dishonest.

And yeah, the Creation is what I was talking about, because the Torah/Bible have errors in it, whilst the Quran is Scientifically deemed correct.

I think it is more accurate to say - The Quran is scientifically deemed "not incorrect". There's a difference. The Torah is very detailed in its description of the forming of the universe and is therefore easily falsifiable. The Quran on the other hand is much more vague and doesn't give any concrete information against which its accuracy may be falsified.

For example, the Torah talks about 6 days of creation but when the Quran says that it took 6 "leom" people say "Leom means 'days' AND 'periods of time'". So although the Quran looks like it is merely repeating the misconception of the Torah it is not falsifiable because we cannot rule out the alternative translation "periods of time." Having said that though, in saying that the Earth was formed in "six periods of time" actually tells us absolutely nothing at all.

People also talk about the Embroylogy system first brought by the Greeks, however even the Greeks theory is incorrect, where as the Quran's version is by Science deemed correct. Not to mention the Quran is deemed as fact, whereas the Greeks only theorized it.

The Greeks had some information correct, and some incorrect. Again the writings by the Greeks is very detailed and therefore very easy to falsify if not 100% correct, whereas the Quran is quite vague. Also where the Quran says "Alaqa" which for many years was translated as "blood clot" there is the opportunity of using an alternative translation of "Leech like clot", removing the possibility of falsification.

Although to me it seems (and I would need more insight into the Arabic) if the alternative translation means "Leech like / clinging + clot" then it would be incorrect, because although there is a stage where the embryo clings to its host it is still never a "clot".

Did you not ask the question then, how if (a man) made the Quran could tell the difference between what part is right and what part is wrong?

I think I have covered this. Above, if not then let me know what you think I didn't cover and I will try to elaborate.

[TheRationalizer]

PS: Thankyou for participating in a conversation which is both interesting and civil.

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with you),

I own that book. Maurice Bucaille is far from scientific in his approach. For example at one point he discusses Pharaoh Merneptah who he argues most closely fits the role of "Faruun". He performs an autopsy on the body and then writes (paraphrased)

"Although the results of the lab tests are not back yet I think they will confirm that the body has water damage and therefore died by drowning"

He is forming a conclusion based on lab results he has not yet received, that is very unscientific and very unprofessional too. But anyway, he says that signs of water damage would prove the Quran right. Then in his next book which was written after the lab results came in he concedes that the lab results show "no sign of water damage" - proving that his first analysis was utterly wrong; but does this now prove the Quran wrong? Of course not, but rather than saying "It neither corroborates nor falsifies the Quran" he then goes on to say (again paraphrased)

"The lack of water damage to the body shows that if the body was in water then it was not in there for very long, therefore proving the story in the Quran is true".

So, if the body has water damage then the Quran is true, and if it doesn't have water damage then the Quran is true. That's hardly objective writing, is it?

I don't really know much about the Pharoah nor have I read that second book, so can't really comment on that. I just know that the Pharoah in the Quran is said to be preserved in Body.

Now, this Pharoah that was found, is this the Pharoah that was at the time Moses(pbuh)? And is there any evidence that shows how this Pharoah's body died?

In regards to the book, the main things I wanted to point out to you is Maurice's analytical use of explaining and comparing the verses. He didn't just go by the English translations, he actually took time in learning Arabic so he can understand the source directly. He gave direct explanations of the language and specific words used. I think it's unfair for you to dismiss his overall work because of one single instance of failed obective writing as you say.

There's alot to take from the book, in regards to the actual Science, which I'm sure he's intelligent enough to know what Science does and doesn't agree with. If you felt a man was talking a bit of jibberish, does not necassarily mean the rest of his talk is all jiberish aswell.

I find that despite your objective writing claim, that his work is still valuable and should not be something to completly dismiss.

I think it is more accurate to say - The Quran is scientifically deemed "not incorrect". There's a difference. The Torah is very detailed in its description of the forming of the universe and is therefore easily falsifiable. The Quran on the other hand is much more vague and doesn't give any concrete information against which its accuracy may be falsified.

A few things you really need to understand;

1. This verse -

"And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?" [54:17]

The above verse makes it clear that God intended the Quran to be easy to understand for the people of Arabia at the time. In my opinion, this explanation is good enough. If God decided to go into detail and start using words that the people would not understand or struggle to pronoucnce, wouldn't that kill the purpose of everything? The Quran, may well then in the 14 centuries become lost in translation like the Torah or the Bible has.

Next thing you need to take into consideration. It's very easy to say "Why did'nt God just say that he created the Earth in X years?" This is again very simple, imagine if the Quran did give an exact or close figure, in the 21st century the discovery becomes confirmed, would people not believe then?

If that happened, wouldn't the whole purpose of what the Quran keeps stressing; ponder, think, reflect be killed? Who needs to think when a figure so accurate about something so diverse and big was produced 1400 years ago, that is confirmed to be exactly true today.

The Vagueness is a) for man to understand, b) for man to remember easier, c) for man to have to think, ponder and reflect deeply over the verses.

2. You talk about the resemblence of the Bible/Torah and the Quran. This verse needs to be taken into consideration -

"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming
what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)
before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment
between right and wrong)." [3:3]

The Muslims believe the originals of the Torah and Gospel are lost/changed etc. But there is still some word of God in there. The Quran is clearly not meant to be a new book, this is something you need to realise. The Quran is the final act of mercy for mankind from their Creator. The same message of the Quran was given before, however as mentioned above, the message got tampered or lost. This is why God specifically says;

"We have sent down the Reminder, and We will preserve it" [15:9]

"Do not move your tongue trying to hasten it. Its collection and recitation are Our affair. So when We recite it, follow its recitation. Then its explanation is Our concern." [75:16-19]

1400 years later the Quran is still in it's original revalation, if man was still left with the responsibilty of taking care/following of God's message, the same would've happend as to what happened to the original Torah and Gospels. Anyways, the point is, you will find resemblences between the Quran and the scriptures before it, however the Quran is sent down to seperate the truth from error which those scriptures contain.

Miraculously, you'll find Science in the Bible that the Quran has, yet the Quran's version or addition to it is correct whereas the Bible's isn't, indicating that maybe there was a change or corruption there. Had the Quran copied from the Bible, it would've also copied the errors and you may try to argue "vagueness", but it doesn't explain what's already clear between the Quran and the Bible and the differentiations in meaning of both, where one is correct and |the other is incorrect.

Feel free to read this which further stresses my point - http://www.defending-islam.com/page166.html

Also this - http://www.whymuhammad.com/en/contents.aspx?aid=4821

For example, the Torah talks about 6 days of creation but when the Quran says that it took 6 "leom" people say "Leom means 'days' AND 'periods of time'". So although the Quran looks like it is merely repeating the misconception of the Torah it is not falsifiable because we cannot rule out the alternative translation "periods of time." Having said that though, in saying that the Earth was formed in "six periods of time" actually tells us absolutely nothing at all.

In regards to the 6 day part, your arguement would be good if it wasn't for the word used to describe "day". That word is "yoaum". The problem with your arguement is the following;

"The verses that mention "six days" use the Arabic word "youm" (day). This word appears several other times in the Qur'an, each denoting a different measurement of time."

This is why you can't say that "day" refers directly to "24 hours of earth day", when throughout the different passages the same word for day is mentioned yet is given a different period.

Read this for further details - http://islam.about.com/od/creation/a/creation.htm

Why Six periods then you ask? What does that tell you? There is actually a Scientific theory on how the universe came to be in "Six periods", although the following is a bit too analytical for my liking, it does touch up on that theory -

http://www.miraclesof*************/scientific_33.html (please try this, remove the spaces - http://www.miracles of the quran.com/scientific_33.html)

I personally will want to further research the theory. But, if we speak in what the Quran means, it means that God created the Heavans and the Earths in 6 periods.

The Greeks had some information correct, and some incorrect. Again the writings by the Greeks is very detailed and therefore very easy to falsify if not 100% correct, whereas the Quran is quite vague. Also where the Quran says "Alaqa" which for many years was translated as "blood clot" there is the opportunity of using an alternative translation of "Leech like clot", removing the possibility of falsification.

Although to me it seems (and I would need more insight into the Arabic) if the alternative translation means "Leech like / clinging + clot" then it would be incorrect, because although there is a stage where the embryo clings to its host it is still never a "clot".

I have covered the vagueness above, i'll touch on it again with a relative quote -

There is a misunderstanding. You are absolutely right that the Qur'an is clear in its guidance. The expression "vague indications of the Qur'an" as written by the author should be seen within the context of the answer. Seeing it within the context, the author means vague indications of the Qur'an related to scientific issues. The Qur'an is clear for its purpose that is guidance. The Qur'an however is not a book of science and therefore does not need to be clear about scientific facts. The verses of the Qur'an have the a function of guiding people in matters of recognizing God, his attributes and of the path of success in the hereafter. Now if we attempt to use those verses not for guidance related to our destiny in the hereafter but to understand a scientific fact from the verse, then of course we can only see vague indications. This is not because the Qur'an is vague, this is because scientific elaboration is not the objective of the Qur'an and because we are trying to utilise the Qur'an for something that is not its purpose. This is in fact praise for the Qur'an, in that while it serves the main purpose (of guidance) it may also be used as an indicator to some scientific facts.

^Though that raises other points, my main points above still stand.

With the Greeks, you say that some of what they said was right and some of what they said was wrong. If a Muhammad(pbuh) copied directly from the Greeks, why did he not also copy that which is wrong? Do you know exactly what the Greeks believed in regards to the embrolygy system and the big bang? If so, please explain to me how the Quran, takes a part of the Greek belief, follows it through to a certain point, and at this point the greek theory goes one way which is wrong, yet the Quran doesn't stop, instead it goes the other way which is proven today to be correct.

I would invite you to watch the following videos in regards to this -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6rHL3tqBy4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF9OWB70mv8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUA0EGTGFtg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf53DEGEh5Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmD8xCvWNFA

Regarding the "clot of blood", I've already read about this, Im in a hurry atm, but I'll happily answer that if I can in another post.

If you know of any, yes please. I hope though the next one you present won't be "The developing human: By Dr Keith Moore" because that is equally dishonest.

I have not read the Dr Keith Moore book, but really, it's dishonest? I'm not sure why top Scientists would put their reputation on the line by being dishonest... This is just a few Scientists, are they all dishonest? (Link) Do you by any chance have links to top Scientist refuting the Quranic miracles?

Anyways, I did a quick search and this came up, I heard of this book, just havn't had the time to read it myself. This one's pretty interesting, especially given the background of the person who wrote it.

Who is Gary Miller?


Professor Gary Miller, the active Canadian preacher and mathematics and logic lecturer at Toronto University, decided to provide a great service to Christianity through exposing scientific and historical errors in the Quran in such a way that would be beneficial to him and his fellow preachers in calling Muslims to Christianity. However, the result was completely to the contrary. Miller's writings were fair and his study and comments were positive, even better than many Muslims would write about the Quran.

Download Link

I hope to read it sometime too, but there's a suggestion for you anyways.

PS: Thankyou for participating in a conversation which is both interesting and civil.

Me too, helps me learn new things when challenged etc.

[Ramadhan]

"We have sent down the Reminder, and We will preserve it" [15:9]

I'd like to draw therationalizer to this verse.
The verse is not just a casual statement, it is an affirmative, a strong promise.
So, if the qur'an is not preserved, we can be sure that it is not from the divine.
Now it has been proven that the qur'an alive today (fully memorised by millons muslims down to the single dot and syllable) is the same as the Qur'an 1,400 years ago.
If you really think about it, what is the odd of that happening.
Remember that the qur'an is a whole book, actively used and recited AROUND THE CLOCK in the form of text, in shalah, or in congregrations by more than a billion muslims in the world, and this has been going on for 1,400 years.
The odd that the original qur'an in 1,400 years mutated into countless different versions with various variations is enormous.
and yet, that didn't happen.
The Qur'an does not change.

You may already have closed your heart and mind to the possibility that the Qur'an is from God, but you cannot deny the above fact.

[Muhaba]

i really love the website www.islam-guide.com . Everyone should check it out. it has some awesome information.

[TheRationalizer]

I'd like to draw therationalizer to this verse.
The verse is not just a casual statement

Who chose the ordering of verses in the Quran?

[Ramadhan]

Who chose the ordering of verses in the Quran?

Can you please respond to my post before you ask me a completely different question without any relation to the issue I presented?
Thanks.

[TheRationalizer]

Can you please respond to my post before you ask me a completely different question without any relation to the issue I presented?
Thanks.

It is relevant to my answer :-)

[Ramadhan]

It is relevant to my answer :-)

Why don't you present your answer.
I'm sure you have known the answer to your question.
no need to beat around the bush, be straight up.
We can discuss your charge then.

[TheRationalizer]

Why don't you present your answer.
I'm sure you have known the answer to your question.
no need to beat around the bush, be straight up.
We can discuss your charge then.

If I presented you with the book "Moby Dick", but in the book I had left the contents of every chapter perfectly preserved but I had rearranged the chapters from longest to shortest would you remark on how the book had been preserved or would you say "Why have you changed it?"

[Ramadhan]

If I presented you with the book "Moby Dick", but in the book I had left the contents of every chapter perfectly preserved but I had rearranged the chapters from longest to shortest would you remark on how the book had been preserved or would you say "Why have you changed it?"

I am still not following you.
How is moby dick got to do with the Qur'an.

please address and respond to my post first.

[TheRationalizer]

I am still not following you.
How is moby dick got to do with the Qur'an.

please address and respond to my post first.

Moby Dick has nothing to do with the Quran, you may change the book to any book of your preference. What would you reply?

[Ramadhan]

Moby Dick has nothing to do with the Quran, you may change the book to any book of your preference. What would you reply?

I don't see how any book's got to do with the qur'an.
Please address the subject re: the preservation of the qur'an.

[TheRationalizer]

I don't see how any book's got to do with the qur'an.
Please address the subject re: the preservation of the qur'an.

You should let me answer in my own way. It doesn't matter if you see what the link is or not (although I can't see how it isn't obvious). If you answer my question then I will be able to answer yours.

[Ramadhan]

You should let me answer in my own way. It doesn't matter if you see what the link is or not (although I can't see how it isn't obvious). If you answer my question then I will be able to answer yours.

I take your refusal to address my post as an affirmative confirmation that you agree with it.

Thanks :)

[TheRationalizer]

I take your refusal to address my post as an affirmative confirmation that you agree with it.

Thanks :)

You can take it that way if you wish, but you will be wrong :-)

But seeing as you don't seem to want to admit that reordering chapters is "modifying a book" let's discuss something rather than arguing something (I prefer arguments anyway.)

I've not looked into the Sana'a Quranic scripts much yet, I've merely heard of their discovery and a claim (which I have not yet checked) that the verses are not in the same order as the Quran. Has anyone here looked into it at all?

tinyurl com / SanaaQuranicScripts

(Can't post links yet)

They seem to have more images now than when I first looked a few years ago.

[aadil77]

You can take it that way if you wish, but you will be wrong :-)

But seeing as you don't seem to want to admit that reordering chapters is "modifying a book" let's discuss something rather than arguing something (I prefer arguments anyway.)

I've not looked into the Sana'a Quranic scripts much yet, I've merely heard of their discovery and a claim (which I have not yet checked) that the verses are not in the same order as the Quran. Has anyone here looked into it at all?

tinyurl com / SanaaQuranicScripts

(Can't post links yet)

They seem to have more images now than when I first looked a few years ago.

Before you even bring up this topic, I'd recommend you join in on the thread already discussing this

I'll try and find the link

[Ramadhan]

You can take it that way if you wish, but you will be wrong :-)

But seeing as you don't seem to want to admit that reordering chapters is "modifying a book" let's discuss something rather than arguing something (I prefer arguments anyway.)

I am still not getting you.

So are you claiming that the qur'an sent by Allah SWT as a complete book, bound, like the bible?
and that the prophet Muhammad SAW changed the order?

I've not looked into the Sana'a Quranic scripts much yet, I've merely heard of their discovery and a claim (which I have not yet checked) that the verses are not in the same order as the Quran. Has anyone here looked into it at all?

Maybe you need to bring your own evidence than relying from a few anti-islamic sites.
That would save you from embarrassment.

[aadil77]

Here's the links to the threads: http://www.islamicboard.com/search.php?searchid=164236

have a look at the arguments made and the answers given incase your queries have already been answered

[TheRationalizer]

Sorry, I meant that I prefer discussions to arguments.

[TheRationalizer]

Okay, found the Sana'a thread, thanks.

[TheRationalizer]

By the way. I outlined both why I don't believe and what it would take me to believe. I don't think anyone has yet said what it would take for them to stop believing yet.

[Ramadhan]

By the way. I outlined both why I don't believe and what it would take me to believe. I don't think anyone has yet said what it would take for them to stop believing yet

every single particles in this universe is proof to believe.
My own existence is enough evidence to believe.
Since the universe exist, and I exist, I can never stop believing.

[TheRationalizer]

every single particles in this universe is proof to believe.
My own existence is enough evidence to believe.
Since the universe exist, and I exist, I can never stop believing.

That's regarding the Deism question, what about the religion question?

[aadil77]

By the way. I outlined both why I don't believe and what it would take me to believe. I don't think anyone has yet said what it would take for them to stop believing yet.

It would take quite alot for me to stop believing, I'd have to loose all the faith, contentment, satisfaction I have inside me about islam. I'd have to loose that connection with god, that He listens to my supplication, stops guiding me, providing for me.

[TheRationalizer]

It would take quite alot for me to stop believing, I'd have to loose all the faith, contentment, satisfaction I have inside me about islam. I'd have to loose that connection with god, that He listens to my supplication, stops guiding me, providing for me.

Hi Aadil

I can't imagine that contentment and satisfaction alone are enough to keep most people believing in something. I was thinking more along the line of evidence. For example if you died and went to heaven and God said "Islam was fake, but in come come anyway" that would be absolutely conclusive, but what is your minimum requirement?

[Ramadhan]

That's regarding the Deism question, what about the religion question?

I cannot see any other religion as complete as Islam, as logical as Islam, and as in line with the nature of man (while addressing and regulating it) as Islam
I do not see any other religious scriptures as error-free, as consistent, as beautiful, as complete guidance as the qur'an
Hence, I do not stop believing

[TheRationalizer]

I cannot see any other religion as complete as Islam, as logical as Islam, and as in line with the nature of man (while addressing and regulating it) as Islam
I do not see any other religious scriptures as error-free, as consistent, as beautiful, as complete guidance as the qur'an
Hence, I do not stop believing

I didn't ask what would convert you to a different religion, I asked what would prove to yours that it is false?

[Ramadhan]

didn't ask what would convert you to a different religion, I asked what would prove to yours that it is false?

That, our estemeed guest, I have already addressed in my previous post.
Remember, something about the promise of Allah SWT about preserving the Qur'an?
If, there comes a time, when billions of muslims recite and memorise various different versions of the Qur'an, I will stop believing.

[TheRationalizer]

That, our estemeed guest, I have already addressed in my previous post.
Remember, something about the promise of Allah SWT about preserving the Qur'an?
If, there comes a time, when billions of muslims recite and memorise various different versions of the Qur'an, I will stop believing.

Hmm no, I don't think you would. It wouldn't be enough to put me off anyway. I'd just think to myself "Allah protected the Quran, those people have made something up for themselves. They haven't corrupted the Quran they have just decided to invent something different" - don't you think?

[Ramadhan]

Hmm no, I don't think you would. It wouldn't be enough to put me off anyway. I'd just think to myself "Allah protected the Quran, those people have made something up for themselves. They haven't corrupted the Quran they have just decided to invent something different" - don't you think?

From the time of Rasulullah SWT, until now 1,400 years later, it has not been corrupted.

I have not changed my view and position about it.

Meanwhile, you keep shifting yours.

:)

[aadil77]

Hi Aadil

I can't imagine that contentment and satisfaction alone are enough to keep most people believing in something. I was thinking more along the line of evidence. For example if you died and went to heaven and God said "Islam was fake, but in come come anyway" that would be absolutely conclusive, but what is your minimum requirement?

The evidence is all there, it all makes sense to me, I can't really stop believing in that evidence. The only thing left that could remove my belief would be loosing that inner contentment and faith.

Having faith plays the main part in believing.

[TheRationalizer]

From the time of Rasulullah SWT, until now 1,400 years later, it has not been corrupted.

I have not changed my view and position about it.

Meanwhile, you keep shifting yours.

:)

Hmm, I am surprised. The reason is that this is something easily achievable by humans. Just get loads of Quran's printed and ship them off to very poor + mostly illiterate places in the world, pay some people to teach the modified versions. After a few decades you'd end up with quite a few people following a modified Quran. That's why it wouldn't be enough for *me*, because the effects are man-made.

I've not shifted my position once, what do you mean?

[Ramadhan]

Hmm, I am surprised. The reason is that this is something easily achievable by humans. Just get loads of Quran's printed and ship them off to very poor + mostly illiterate places in the world, pay some people to teach the modified versions. After a few decades you'd end up with quite a few people following a modified Quran. That's why it would be enough for *me*, because the effects are man-made.

Do you not see the irony in your statement above?

It seems very very easy to falsify the Qur'an and make many different versions of it, and teach many people to memorise different versions of it, and the time is 1,400 years, not a few decades.
HOWEVER,
the fact is: it never happened.
the Qur'an recited around the clock by more than a billion muslims and fully memorised by millions of muslims remains the same, unchanged, from the one 1,400 years ago.

Do you not see how miraculous that is? the odd and everything?

Maybe you can start your own experiment, and see how it goes.
I'm sure many (enemies of Islams) have tried before.

[TheRationalizer]

Do you not see the irony in your statement above?

It seems very very easy to falsify the Qur'an and make many different versions of it, and teach many people to memorise different versions of it, and the time is 1,400 years, not a few decades.
HOWEVER,
the fact is: it never happened.
the Qur'an recited around the clock by more than a billion muslims and fully memorised by millions of muslims remains the same, unchanged, from the one 1,400 years ago.

Do you not see how miraculous that is? the odd and everything?

Maybe you can start your own experiment, and see how it goes.
I'm sure many (enemies of Islams) have tried before.

No, I see no irony. This is something I wouldn't do because ultimately I suspect it would end with sectarian violence. I don't find the fact that a book is unaltered a miracle at all. I am sure there are many books in the world which have not changed since they were first published. Even if the Quran is the oldest book that has never been altered I see it as no reason to claim a miracle, if the Quran had never existed then some other book would be the oldest book in the world that had never changed.

[Ramadhan]

No, I see no irony. This is something I wouldn't do because ultimately I suspect it would end with sectarian violence. I don't find the fact that a book is unaltered a miracle at all. I am sure there are many books in the world which have not changed since they were first published. Even if the Quran is the oldest book that has never been altered I see it as no reason to claim a miracle, if the Quran had never existed then some other book would be the oldest book in the world that had never changed.

Has any other book has thrown a challenge to produce something like it, and on top of that a strong promise to guide it from corruption, and on top of that a guidance to live, written as literary miracle, containing many amazing facts?

Anyway, i am glad that you finally admit that the Qur'an is unaltered.

See, this is why I said you keep shifting yours :)

First you said it would be easy to create many different versions of the qur'an

and now you backtrack and saying that the fact the qur'an is unaltered is no miracle.

what's next?

:)

[aadil77]

No, I see no irony. This is something I wouldn't do because ultimately I suspect it would end with sectarian violence. I don't find the fact that a book is unaltered a miracle at all. I am sure there are many books in the world which have not changed since they were first published. Even if the Quran is the oldest book that has never been altered I see it as no reason to claim a miracle, if the Quran had never existed then some other book would be the oldest book in the world that had never changed.

One thing you will find is that everyone has their own reasons for believing, you can't really scrutinise the fact that we find the Quran being unaltered as a miracle. Something I find miraculous another person may not. Miracles are not the only reason to believe, they are their to assist your belief, increase your faith.

[TheRationalizer]

Has any other book has thrown a challenge to produce something like it, and on top of that a strong promise to guide it from corruption, and on top of that a guidance to live, written as literary miracle, containing many amazing facts?

Anyway, i am glad that you finally admit that the Qur'an is unaltered.

See, this is why I said you keep shifting yours :)

First you said it would be easy to create many different versions of the qur'an

and now you backtrack and saying that the fact the qur'an is unaltered is no miracle.

what's next?

:)

I haven't said that the Quran is unaltered. The best I'd be able to manage (which is what I would have said from the start) is that I am currently aware of no conclusive evidence that it has been altered. One cannot prove a negative. In fact if the story regarding the Sana'a manuscripts are correct then that would be proof that one of the earliest known copies of the Quran has been altered; but I can't see anyone accepting that as a faith-destroying revelation because I'd expect people simply to say "but that wasn't a genuine Quran".

And I have not back-tracked on the miracle status either. I see no reason to think that an unaltered book is a miracle. There is an Estruscan book in a museum in Bulgaria which is over 2.5 thousand years old written on gold plates. If nobody finds evidence that the words in it were copied and modified would you consider that to be "a miracle"?

[Ramadhan]

I haven't said that the Quran is unaltered. The best I'd be able to manage (which is what I would have said from the start) is that I am currently aware of no conclusive evidence that it has been altered. One cannot prove a negative. In fact if the story regarding the Sana'a manuscripts are correct then that would be proof that one of the earliest known copies of the Quran has been altered; but I can't see anyone accepting that as a faith-destroying revelation because I'd expect people simply to say "but that wasn't a genuine Quran".

I've thrown you a challenge based on your own hypotheses (about making different versions of the Qur'an), and you backtracked.
You keep mentioning Sana'a mansucripts, and yet never show us why/what/how that it was a different set of the Qur'an.

Can you for a moment talk about logic, facts and evidence, which should be easy for someone who chose "therationalizer" as the nickname?

And I have not back-tracked on the miracle status either. I see no reason to think that an unaltered book is a miracle. There is an Estruscan book in a museum in Bulgaria which is over 2.5 thousand years old written on gold plates. If nobody finds evidence that the words in it were copied and modified would you consider that to be "a miracle"?

I will give you something else older: one of those 4,000 years old egyptian or babylonian tablets.
Maybe I am behind news, but are those plates/tablets have been living, in constant use, in circulation, recited by, memorised by millions of people in the past 4,000 years, instead buried in the sand/ground?

[TheRationalizer]

I've thrown you a challenge based on your own hypotheses (about making different versions of the Qur'an), and you backtracked.

I said two things
1: I don't think most people would accept it (even though you claim you would)
2: It's not something I would do even if I had the money because it would result in sectarian violence

You keep mentioning Sana'a mansucripts, and yet never show us why/what/how that it was a different set of the Qur'an.

At no point did I claim they conclusively showed that they were a different version of the Quran. I clearly said that I am currently not aware of conclusive evidence, I wouldn't make such a claim until I had researched it fully and I haven't. I was just wondering what people's reactions would be if the claims about them were true...

youtube com / watch?v=JJyeuXtZFuQ&t=3m20s

Most of the video is a load of hype, but I have linked to the point at which the statement is made about the Sana'a scripts having evidence of being modified.

Can you for a moment talk about logic, facts and evidence, which should be easy for someone who chose "therationalizer" as the nickname?

Hmm, I sense some hostility here, there really is no need. I try to be as logical as I can, and I will present evidence to back up any claims I make - although I haven't actually made any claims as far as I recall. If I have made a specific claim for which you would like to see evidence then please quote it and I will either provide the evidence or withdraw the claim.

I will give you something else older: one of those 4,000 years old egyptian or babylonian tablets.
Maybe I am behind news, but are those plates/tablets have been living, in constant use, in circulation, recited by, memorised by millions of people in the past 4,000 years, instead buried in the sand/ground?

And they remain despite being duplicated over the years?

[Ramadhan]

I said two things
1: I don't think most people would accept it (even though you claim you would)

That's your hypothesis. Not proven until tried, right?

2: It's not something I would do even if I had the money because it would result in sectarian violence

There have been countless attempts to do exactly what you proposed.
The result: Unaltered qur'an

Therefore: your hypothesis failed.

At no point did I claim they conclusively showed that they were a different version of the Quran. I clearly said that I am currently not aware of conclusive evidence, I wouldn't make such a claim until I had researched it fully and I haven't. I was just wondering what people's reactions would be if the claims about them were true...

youtube com / watch?v=JJyeuXtZFuQ&t=3m20s

Most of the video is a load of hype, but I have linked to the point at which the statement is made about the Sana'a scripts having evidence of being modified.

So another hypothesis and hearsay.

Hmm, I sense some hostility here, there really is no need. I try to be as logical as I can, and I will present evidence to back up any claims I make - although I haven't actually made any claims as far as I recall. If I have made a specific claim for which you would like to see evidence then please quote it and I will either provide the evidence or withdraw the claim.

even when I am logically and proven right (about the preservation of the qur'an and God's promise), you refuse to accept it anyway.
For you, being rational and logical seem subjective.

And they remain despite being duplicated over the years?

when were they unearthed after buried for 4,000 years?
Did they contain the promise of their makers to guard it from corruption?
were they a guidance to live, written as literary miracle, containing many amazing science and numerical facts (and proven predictions)?

[TheRationalizer]

That's your hypothesis. Not proven until tried, right?

That indeed is what a hypothesis is.

There have been countless attempts to do exactly what you proposed.
The result: Unaltered qur'an

I am unaware of them, can you give me historical references?

So another hypothesis and hearsay

Not if the results of the tests are reproduced. If others are able to shine florescent light on the scripts and see the same evidence then it would be factual evidence. I was wondering if it would be enough for people to apostatise - I think maybe some would but most would not.

even when I am logically and proven right (about the preservation of the qur'an and God's promise), you refuse to accept it anyway.

So what are you saying? I am unable to copy the Quran and make a single change? Or that if I made this change not a single person would fall for it?

For you, being rational and logical seem subjective.

No, I am willing to be convinced of anything. Even if for the sake of argument I said that the Quran has definitely remained unaltered I have already said that I wouldn't consider it to be proof of divinity. It should be a method of falsification, but as I said I don't think most people would see it that way.

when were they unearthed after buried for 4,000 years?

Your English wasn't very good so I wasn't exactly sure what you were saying.

[Ramadhan]

That indeed is what a hypothesis is.

Correct.
which cannot be used as the basis for conviction.
Otherwise it is only pure faith/belief.
of which yours is.

I am unaware of them, can you give me historical references?

I am starting to doubt your claim in the op that you have researched Islam in-depth when you are not even unaware that there have been countless attempts to create fake qur'ans in the past 1,400 years.
For example: http://haram.wordpress.com/2007/04/1...century-quran/
In Indonesia alone, every year the department for religious affairs found fake copies of the qur'an through complaints by communities, those were normally distributed by christians missionaries or fundies.

So, again, do you not find it amazing that more than a billion of muslims recite and millions of muslims fully memorised one same qur'an even after 1,400 years and even after such attempts to introduce fake qur'ans?

let's talk about logic and facts, shall we?

Not if the results of the tests are reproduced. If others are able to shine florescent light on the scripts and see the same evidence then it would be factual evidence. I was wondering if it would be enough for people to apostatise - I think maybe some would but most would not.

And yet, it IS still your hypothesis, whether you like it or not.

So what are you saying? I am unable to copy the Quran and make a single change? Or that if I made this change not a single person would fall for it?

I am saying that Allah has made the promise to preserve the Qur'an (as in the Qur'an itself),
and I am saying that so far the promise has been fully kept.

No, I am willing to be convinced of anything. Even if for the sake of argument I said that the Quran has definitely remained unaltered I have already said that I wouldn't consider it to be proof of divinity. It should be a method of falsification, but as I said I don't think most people would see it that way.

You asked ME what I considered as a measure to stop believing, and I DID give you that.
God has made a promise.
And if the promise is not kept, then the one who made the promise cannot be God.
but God has kept the promise.
So I do not stop believing.

No one has asked YOU what you consider as a method of falsification, and I CERTAINLY did not.

[TheRationalizer]

Correct.
which cannot be used as the basis for conviction.
Otherwise it is only pure faith/belief.
of which yours is.

I don't believe anything in faith.

I am starting to doubt your claim in the op that you have researched Islam in-depth when you are not even unaware that there have been countless attempts to create fake qur'ans in the past 1,400 years.

I'm not at all sure why you think someone looking at Islam with the view of becoming a Muslim would certainly go and look for instances of faked Qurans. It's just not something that occurred to me.

So, again, do you not find it amazing that more than a billion of muslims recite and millions of muslims fully memorised one same qur'an even after 1,400 years and even after such attempts to introduce fake qur'ans?

I don't find it miraculous at all. There is nothing about this which defies the laws of physics and therefore it is a perfectly natural phenomenon.

And yet, it IS still your hypothesis, whether you like it or not.

Yes, but I don't believe the hypothesis.

You asked ME what I considered as a measure to stop believing, and I DID give you that.
God has made a promise.
And if the promise is not kept, then the one who made the promise cannot be God.
but God has kept the promise.
So I do not stop believing.

So to break the promise not only does there have to be a different version of the Quran, but lots of people have to be using it? So if the Sana'a Quranic scripts showed the verses of the Quran were different in the past that would not count because nobody today is using that version? I am just trying to establish your position completely accurately.

No one has asked YOU what you consider as a method of falsification, and I CERTAINLY did not.

I'm not sure if you understood me or not. I would consider this to be a statement worthy of scientific falsification in the Quran, but I am not so sure that everyone else would.

[Ramadhan]

I don't believe anything in faith.

But from what your replies, it seems you believe in your conjectures.

I'm not at all sure why you think someone looking at Islam with the view of becoming a Muslim would certainly go and look for instances of faked Qurans. It's just not something that occurred to me.

unlike other religions, there is nothing to hide or cover in Islam.
You asked me whether it would be easy to falsify the qur'an and you did not know there have been attempts to do so.
And I give you facts and examples.
BUT,
strangely,
those attempts always failed in the end.
Even after 1,400 years and billions of muslims later, we still recite and memorise one same qur'an.

I am showing you how odd that is.

If you don't believe me, have a look at the state of bible for contrast.

AND, you still seem to be unable to accept this fact.

This is why I said you prefer to believe in your own conjectures and hypotheses than reason and facts.

Remember when Allah promise to guard the Qur'an?
and the fact that the promise is still being kept although the odd against it is super enormous?

So to break the promise not only does there have to be a different version of the Quran, but lots of people have to be using it? So if the Sana'a Quranic scripts showed the verses of the Quran were different in the past that would not count because nobody today is using that version? I am just trying to establish your position completely accurately.

Anyone can write anything, but will people use it, will it lasting?
likewise, anyone can produce fake qurans, but will muslims use it, will it be used more than a few days, a few weeks?
You don't have to go to the past.
Even today, continuous attempts (as I have shown you) are being made by enemies of Islam to distort the message of Islam, to create different versions of Qur'an.
and YET, they all have failed.
Billons of muslims are still reciting and memorising one Qur'an around the clock. Billions of muslims are still using the (one) Qur'an as guidance of life.

you kept saying sana'a scripts, and yet I have NOT seen you tell us how/what/why it is.

I wish you stop throwing around conjectures, hypothesis, and come up with reason, logic and evidence, as your username would suggest.

[TheRationalizer]

But from what your replies, it seems you believe in your conjectures.

I have experienced many times people saying things like "prove X to me and I will reject Islam", then I show them conclusive proof and they just grin and ignore it.

From my experience this has happened every time someone has given me a "prove X" scenario, but seeing as this is only a small sample size I am not willing to extrapolate it - instead I retain it as a hypothesis.

You asked me whether it would be easy to falsify the qur'an and you did not know there have been attempts to do so.
And I give you facts and examples.
BUT,
strangely,
those attempts always failed in the end.
Even after 1,400 years and billions of muslims later, we still recite and memorise one same qur'an.

I didn't actually want this thread to turn into "and then I will try to present you with the evidence you require" - I was more interested in a higher level discussion about what level of evidence people required - it just seems to have slipped.

If you don't believe me, have a look at the state of bible for contrast.

I am aware of the various manuscripts which were found that contradict the Bible. The thing is that the Bible wasn't canonised until the 4th century (if my memory is correct - but a significant time afterwards anyway), this gave Christianity much more time to evolve whereas Uthman canonised the Quran within a few decades and burned all the other copies.

What strikes me as odd about this is
1: If there was only 1 version of the Quran, why did it need to be canonized?
2: If the other Qurans were the same as the one Uthman had why did they need to be burned?
3: Why did Uthman rearrange the Quran? That would be changing it from the Quran apparently held in heaven by Allah.
4: How did Uthman know which order to put the chapters in? Surely Allah didn't send him a message.

But then the diacritical dots weren't added until the 7th/8th centuries. This gives more time for evolving of the Quran, small variations such as Ta or Ya to emerge.

AND, you still seem to be unable to accept this fact.

Well I am not going to accept it on your authority. I'd need to investigate it and see all the evidence first before making my decision. But as I said, a book that hasn't changed isn't proof of a divine origin - but I accept that if anyone can find a single Quran out there in use today which differs even by a single diacritic dot it would falsify the claim in the Quran.

This is why I said you prefer to believe in your own conjectures and hypotheses than reason and facts.

You are under the misapprehension that I have a preference for what the truth should be. I only care that I possess it - if someone proved to me today that Zeus was real and gave me the evidence that I should bow down and worship him otherwise I would be killed by a bold of lightening if I didn't then I would at this point be on my knees worshipping him.

Remember when Allah promise to guard the Qur'an?
and the fact that the promise is still being kept although the odd against it is super enormous?

You seem to find it more enormous than I do. As I said, there are plenty of books in existence that remain unaltered. But at least it shows me that you are willing to reject the Quran based on a piece of evidence which should be easy to present if it exists. If I can find a version of the Quran which is commonly used which has a single omitted/additional word, or has a single diacritical dot difference then you would accept that we have no way of knowing which one is correct and would also accept that Allah has not honoured his promise to provide all Muslims with exactly the same Quran. That's quite rare in my experience.


tinyurl com / Jalalayan-28-37

He mentions that this verse starts either with Qaala or Waqaala. This is a whole new word. If this is correct then there was at least one Quran in use at the time which varied. Meaning that although they were very close they were not exactly the same.

Does this show that not all Muslims follow the same Quran? Or do I have to find a Quran that is still in use today by a large number of Muslims which differs from the one you have?

you kept saying sana'a scripts, and yet I have NOT seen you tell us how/what/why it is.

Sorry, I thought they were well known enough for just about everyone to have heard of them. They were discovered by builders in 1972 in the Sana'a mosque. In 1979 some of the pages were taken to Germany for restoration and carbon dating showed them to originate between 650-700CE.

You can see photos of some of the pages here:
tinyurl com / SanaaQuranicManuscripts

I linked to a video on youtube too. It raises the question of whether the text was written, washed off, and rewritten - but I tend not to believe stuff I see on youtube videos so it's on my to-do list of things to look into in the future :-)

I wish you stop throwing around conjectures, hypothesis, and come up with reason, logic and evidence, as your username would suggest.

At the point I wish to try to prove something then I shall do my best to live up to your expectations.

[Ramadhan]

I have experienced many times people saying things like "prove X to me and I will reject Islam", then I show them conclusive proof and they just grin and ignore it.

or maybe you just have not shown them conclusive proof.

You have not shown me how the qur'an fully memorised down to the single syllable by millions of muslims today differ than that taught by prophet Muhammad SAW.

I am waiting for your proof and evidence.

Not conjectures and hypothesis that you keep throwing around.

Please show us.

You have the time in the world until I die.

Or until you die, which will be a little bit too late for you.


:)

[TheRationalizer]

or maybe you just have not shown them conclusive proof.

Me: There is a hadith in Sahih Bukhari which says X
Her: Show me that in Bukhari and I will renounce Islam.
Me: Here it is
Her: Looked in disbelief, then just walked away.

You have not shown me how the qur'an fully memorised down to the single syllable by millions of muslims today differ than that taught by prophet Muhammad SAW.

At no point did I say I was going to.

[Ramadhan]

At no point did I say I was going to.

ok.
I'll accept that.

:)

[M.I.A.]

god told adam peace and blessings be upon him.

what motives did adam have to lie?
did eve not believe? ...dont answer that lol

anyway whatever motivation or agenda you would think adam had, he was most content until he left his ways for someone elses.

so yeah i believe in muhammed saw and the word of god because i have left my ways and eve i dont even know about... and im better for it... or worse of, dont know where you find contentment.

ps

nobodies perfect so every act of submission is a test from the lord (i remain ever fearfull, but not in any way you would understand) but the way i act my scenes is straight from another script (i would hope).

if you want the quran to mimic science and its progression i dont think it ever will, if you want physical miracels manafest like the speed of light then just read what the angels are made out of.

you obviously want the quran to reflect something you already believe in, the quran is life wiping the hard drive and starting again...brainwashing as many as will follow...just like every other ideology, proposition, theory, political or religious viewpoint...eyc etc etc etc like every word uttered that floats through your ears and gets desiphered by your brain.

this only leaves one thing and that is that its all well and good to think god influences everybody from the shadows.. but that is not who we speak of.. we speak of those that would protect the weak of mind and fight the strong willed.. ultimately the rule book states how to do so in the correct manner and when things happen they happen on such an epic scale (six billion people, countless molecules) then god is manifest and on that day.. you will want to know the rules like its not a game.
for yourself, for your family, for your friends, for everyone you will ever lay your eyes on..
you would want to know how to act on that day.

ps the bullets are always real by the way.

if you would think people gave there lives for honour, power, political gain, fame, wealth... well thats your oppinion... nobody knows what the carrot on the stick is.




well that was all a bit ott.

[M.I.A.]

god told adam peace and blessings be upon him.

what motives did adam have to lie?
did eve not believe? ...dont answer that lol

anyway whatever motivation or agenda you would think adam had, he was most content until he left his ways for someone elses.

so yeah i believe in muhammed saw and the word of god because i have left my ways and eve i dont even know about... and im better for it... or worse of, dont know where you find contentment.

ps

nobodies perfect so every act of submission is a test from the lord (i remain ever fearfull, but not in any way you would understand) but the way i act my scenes is straight from another script (i would hope).

if you want the quran to mimic science and its progression i dont think it ever will, if you want physical miracels manafest like the speed of light then just read what the angels are made out of.

you obviously want the quran to reflect something you already believe in, the quran is life wiping the hard drive and starting again...brainwashing as many as will follow...just like every other ideology, proposition, theory, political or religious viewpoint...eyc etc etc etc like every word uttered that floats through your ears and gets desiphered by your brain.

this only leaves one thing and that is that its all well and good to think god influences everybody from the shadows.. but that is not who we speak of.. we speak of those that would protect the weak of mind and fight the strong willed.. ultimately the rule book states how to do so in the correct manner and when things happen they happen on such an epic scale (six billion people, countless molecules) then god is manifest and on that day.. you will want to know the rules like its not a game.
for yourself, for your family, for your friends, for everyone you will ever lay your eyes on..
you would want to know how to act on that day.

ps the bullets are always real by the way.

if you would think people gave there lives for honour, power, political gain, fame, wealth... well thats your oppinion... nobody knows what the carrot on the stick is.




well that was all a bit ott.

[TheRationalizer]

ok.
I'll accept that.

:)

Good :) I didn't want this thread to be "and then I will give you your evidence" - I only want it to be a discussion about different levels of proof people require to believe/disbelieve something.

So....anyone else? What would make you believe/disbelieve in god/religion?

[Saad17]

I believe the real question is not "Does God exist?" but rather "Do you want God to exist?".

[M.I.A.]

I believe the real question is not "Does God exist?" but rather "Do you want God to exist?".

you mean do you believe in god?

[Saad17]

you mean do you believe in god?

Its like the question is that are you searching for God ? are you searching for His guidance or are you happy with what you got? because I would say even if God was proven, there would be atheists (that don't believe in that God), trying to escape Him because people simply love this life and most of them aren't interested in Hereafter or the Truth.

[TheRationalizer]

I believe the real question is not "Does God exist?" but rather "Do you want God to exist?".

Do you want pixies to exist? Do you want unicorns to exist? What about the Loch Ness Monster, do you want that to exist?

Those were rhetorical questions, I don't really care if you want them to exist or not :-) My point is that when you look at the subjects listed above you don't let your decision be biased by your desire to match a preconceived outcome. The difference between you and I is I make no exceptions, whereas you apparently do.

Would you make an exception for Zeus, or Thor, or Odin, or in fact any of the thousands of man made gods/religions that have come and gone since the beginning of recorded history? I doubt it, so it only makes sense to be consistent.

Personally I don't care what the truth is, I only care that I have it. If someone showed me conclusive proof of god + there being one god + muhammad being his messenger I would accept it without having any problems at all. On the other hand, if someone proved to me conclusively that lightening is thrown down from mount Olympus by Zeus I would accept that too without any problems.

I don't care what people prove to me, I just require proof before accepting it. If I live my life believing things on faith then there really is no way to know what should be accepted on faith and what should be rejected on faith.

So in answer to your question "Do you want god to exist" I can only answer - I have no preference.

[Saad17]

I searched for God and I got Islam as an answer.

So I'm asking that are you on the road to search for the truth as well or just looking for what makes one a believer and one a disbeliever in God?

So do you want God or you're fine with your life? Thats my question, just curious.

[M.I.A.]

Do you want pixies to exist? Do you want unicorns to exist? What about the Loch Ness Monster, do you want that to exist?

Those were rhetorical questions, I don't really care if you want them to exist or not :-) My point is that when you look at the subjects listed above you don't let your decision be biased by your desire to match a preconceived outcome. The difference between you and I is I make no exceptions, whereas you apparently do.

Would you make an exception for Zeus, or Thor, or Odin, or in fact any of the thousands of man made gods/religions that have come and gone since the beginning of recorded history? I doubt it, so it only makes sense to be consistent.

Personally I don't care what the truth is, I only care that I have it. If someone showed me conclusive proof of god + there being one god + muhammad being his messenger I would accept it without having any problems at all. On the other hand, if someone proved to me conclusively that lightening is thrown down from mount Olympus by Zeus I would accept that too without any problems.

I don't care what people prove to me, I just require proof before accepting it. If I live my life believing things on faith then there really is no way to know what should be accepted on faith and what should be rejected on faith.

So in answer to your question "Do you want god to exist" I can only answer - I have no preference.

i could honestly believe lightning was an act of god, what you interpret that act to represent is a different matter entirely.
same as the rain from the sky, natural disasters etc etc.

if you believe thor could call down lightning.. well that would make him a very formidable foe to those against him.

strange understandings indeed.

[TheRationalizer]

I searched for God and I got Islam as an answer.

So I'm asking that are you on the road to search for the truth as well or just looking for what makes one a believer and one a disbeliever in God?

So do you want God or you're fine with your life? Thats my question, just curious.

I'm perfectly happy without god, but that doesn't affect my status at all. If god exists and wants a relationship with me then I too want one - but as I see no evidence of a god that is trying to have a relationship with me I do not morn the absence any more than I morn the absence of my ability to go for a ride on a winged horse; sure it would be nice but if it's not on offer...

I was a deist for many years of my life, I just didn't accept that there was a religion on Earth made by god. I saw religion as a way of permitting a minority to influence the actions of a majority, for people to have an esteemed status amongst their peers, etc. I had been indoctrinated as a child at school via school assemblies and via religious films on TV to believe that believe without proof (faith) is a wonderful thing to have, but then I heard about the Quran.

I can't quite remember how I initially heard about it, but I heard that it was the exact words of the creator of the universe. With this in mind there would not be a single error in the Quran, but above this it would be absolutely perfect so there wouldn't even be something in there which could have an alternative (and incorrect) explanation otherwise it would not be perfect. The mother of my daughter's school friend heard about my interest and told me that there were miracles in the Quran, information that we know now which could not have been known at the time.

Suddenly my "truth without proof" delusion was shattered. Every man made religion on Earth implores people to believe without proof, simply because natural beings such as humans cannot provide supernatural proof. It made perfect sense to me that if there is a god and this god wanted me to follow a specific religion then it would create a religion that not only stood out above the rest but one which also would be clearly impossible for a human to have created. The criteria I was given fit that bill perfectly:

1: No errors
2: No alternate meanings which could be taken as errors (therefore perfect)
3: Information no human could have known

Rather than having to pop down to Earth and show his face every 25 years or so, just leave a message which can ONLY be from god. It made perfect sense, so I read 3 translations of the Quran: Yusuf Ali, Mohsin, Pickthal.

I found it to be really dull, uninspiring, and simply reading it all the way through to the last chapter was probably the most difficult chore I have ever managed to complete. I looked at every miracle claim associated with the Quran that I could find, but with only a small amount of research into history etc I was able to explain every one of them.

I was very disappointed. Ultimately though I was now past the "faith is a virtue" phase of my life, those claims for the Quran led me not only to accept information only if supported by evidence, but ironically it ultimately led me to be an atheist - despite wanting it to be true.

Short life story there :)

[M.I.A.]

the quran is not just a read through,
it is knowledge that when applied to life will show you what the world is.
relationships with god are always indirect... for all that i have found i know that the only meeting with god will be when i die..after the punishment in the grave and such.

i cant believe you disregarded the quran, its the book you could read for the rest of your life and would always give you something new to think about.

[TheRationalizer]

i cant believe you disregarded the quran, its the book you could read for the rest of your life and would always give you something new to think about.

Wasn't it supposed to impress me? Even just a little? It is supposedly the world's most perfect book after all.

[Snowflake]

Why I don't accept a religion etc etc
Why I don't accept there is a God etc etc ?

The answer to that is in the Quran

Surah 18:29
Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!
Here we clearly see that people have a FREE WILL to believe or disbelieve in God.

Surah 73:19
Lo! This is a Reminder. Let him who will, then, choose a way unto his Lord.

Surah 25:57
Say: I ask of you no reward for this, save that whoso may, will choose a way unto his Lord.

Surah 80:11-12
Nay, but verily it is an Admonishment, So let whosoever will pay heed to it



Dear Brothers and Sisters, assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu,

Should we be spending a vast amount of time trying to convince atheists/disbelievers, of Allah’s existence, when it is Allah who guides? Our job is to give them the Message. The Rationalizer has already received it, yet he chooses to disbelieve. So the matter is between him and Allah. We should spend more time repenting, in worship, serving our parents and mankind, and gaining and spreading knowledge to benefit others. Rationalizer, may Allah guide you to the Truth. Ameen.

[Saad17]

Wasn't it supposed to impress me? Even just a little? It is supposedly the world's most perfect book after all.

But the real deal is in Arabic apparently and also the fact that Quran is a recitation, not a written word, thats one of the reason that it survived for such a long time.


However you may look at this watch?v=3R-xz77Ur1o on youtube. You may wanna view other parts but the 5th part is good.

[TheRationalizer]

But the real deal is in Arabic apparently and also the fact that Quran is a recitation, not a written word, thats one of the reason that it survived for such a long time.

So how is that supposed to impress anyone other than people who read fluent Arabic? How is it supposed to impress me, a native English speaker? If I cannot pick up the book and see beauty in the meaning of the words what is my incentive to spend years learning Arabic?

[aadil77]

So how is that supposed to impress anyone other than people who read fluent Arabic? How is it supposed to impress me, a native English speaker? If I cannot pick up the book and see beauty in the meaning of the words what is my incentive to spend years learning Arabic?

years LOL - nice way to exaggerate it

according to some reverts you can learn to read arabic in a week, to understand it a 2-3 month course will do

[forthetruth]

Do you want pixies to exist? Do you want unicorns to exist? What about the Loch Ness Monster, do you want that to exist?

Those were rhetorical questions, I don't really care if you want them to exist or not :-) My point is that when you look at the subjects listed above you don't let your decision be biased by your desire to match a preconceived outcome. The difference between you and I is I make no exceptions, whereas you apparently do.
.

How ironic, it is you who wanted to match a preconceived outcome.

What it will take for to to believe is to remove ANY sickness within you. You need to know that God does not need your worship, you NEED to worship God to have peace of mind here and to have a share of the hereafter. Do you love this world more than the hereafter? If you don't worship God, you will only be wronging yourself. You're not deceiving us and not the least harm are you doing to God. If you don't know God, you have forgotten yourself. YOU speak about fantasy, because YOU left reality. We are consistent our posts reflect that, we're only speaking about God. How many fantastical ideas do you have? Whats coming next?

[forthetruth]

"There are those who reason well, but they are greatly outnumbered by those who reason badly." - Galileo
"It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." Sir Francis Bacon
"Philosophy [nature] is written in that great book which ever is before our eyes -- I mean the universe -- but we cannot understand it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the symbols in which it is written. The book is written in mathematical language, and the symbols are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without whose help it is impossible to comprehend a single word of it; without which one wanders in vain through a dark labyrinth." - Galileo Galilei
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."- Galileo Galilei

[TheRationalizer]

years LOL - nice way to exaggerate it

according to some reverts you can learn to read arabic in a week, to understand it a 2-3 month course will do

1: Learning to phonetically read Arabic is no use, so the 1 week quote is irrelevant.
2: In 2-3 months most people will learn basic sentences such as "Where do you live?" and "Where are you from?" - I know, I've been on one.

A minimum of a year for most people, and to understand deeply a lot longer. So, where is my incentive to learn Arabic? The meaning of the words in English didn't inspire me to spend a year of my life learning another language just in case it's worth doing. There are plenty of other religions with other languages that both you and I would not spend a year or more learning "just in case" there is anything to their claims - so why should I make an exception for Arabic?

[aadil77]

1: Learning to phonetically read Arabic is no use, so the 1 week quote is irrelevant.
2: In 2-3 months most people will learn basic sentences such as "Where do you live?" and "Where are you from?" - I know, I've been on one.

A minimum of a year for most people, and to understand deeply a lot longer. So, where is my incentive to learn Arabic? The meaning of the words in English didn't inspire me to spend a year of my life learning another language just in case it's worth doing. There are plenty of other religions with other languages that both you and I would not spend a year or more learning "just in case" there is anything to their claims - so why should I make an exception for Arabic?

I was replying in response to what you said to saad17, you don't need to understand the arabic in the Quran to see the way it flows as a recitation

[TheRationalizer]

I was replying in response to what you said to saad17, you don't need to understand the arabic in the Quran to see the way it flows as a recitation

Nor a limerick, nor a poem, nor a song. For me beauty alone can never be a sign of divinity because beauty is subjective whereas the properties of god are apparently objective.

If god is fair why would it base it's proof on beauty and then not let everyone find it beautiful?

[forthetruth]

We claim to know the truth and we can justify it using logic and reason.

Do you really want to know the truth? Or do you love to follow your own whims and desires, if so you are self-destructive. God could've just put you in Hell, but He is the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. He knows you more than you know yourself. He has more knowledge than the little than use possess. Are those that do good equal to those that do bad, will there not be a day of recompense. Can you evade death. You know what the truth is, like you know who your father is, but you are stubborn, ungrateful. Stop being so stubborn, only then your mind will be at ease and you will be content, because until you do that you will remain blinded.

I haven't merged or replaced reality with fantasy. I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except God, and i do not want to lie, so i don't ever see a way i will stop believing.

We have sufficient evidence all proving the existence of God but because you can't prove otherwise(that God doesn’t exist) you conclude that God doesn't exist. Don't you see this is foolish behaviour.
Don't you just really want to follow you whims and desires and are therefore ready to decline the authenticity of anything that goes against that. Are you really rational?

I believe in the entire Quran, if you can make something like the Qur’an, I will stop believing in the Author of the Book.

The author of the Book challenges you. If you fail then fear the fire

The miracle is not limited to beauty.

[forthetruth]

He has more knowledge than the little than use possess.[/QUOTE]

*the little that you possess

[aadil77]

Nor a limerick, nor a poem, nor a song. For me beauty alone can never be a sign of divinity because beauty is subjective whereas the properties of god are apparently objective.

If god is fair why would it base it's proof on beauty and then not let everyone find it beautiful?

Which is why I've reiterated this to you many times before; we do not look at single aspects of islam 'alone' in order to prove it as the truth, again these are small things which are there to make you think - not alone try to prove the existence of a deity

[TheRationalizer]

I dont just follow my whims and desires. I act in the interests of my family and my community. Why would you assume that just because I don't think there is some invisible thing that will punish me I would automatically become self serving?

I don't conclude god does not exist, it is logically impossible to prove an unrestricted negative, I just conclude that I have seen no evidence of something that can only be possible if god exists, and that there is only one god.

If the miracle is not limited to beauty then tell me, what else does it have, because I saw no beauty in it at all but lots of appeals to believe without proof and threats of eternal torture for those who do not.

[aadil77]

I dont just follow my whims and desires. I act in the interests of my family and my community. Why would you assume that just because I don't think there is some invisible thing that will punish me I would automatically become self serving?

I don't conclude god does not exist, it is logically impossible to prove an unrestricted negative, I just conclude that I have seen no evidence of something that can only be possible if god exists, and that there is only one god.

If the miracle is not limited to beauty then tell me, what else does it have, because I saw no beauty in it at all but lots of appeals to believe without proof and threats of eternal torture for those who do not.

Why not try looking at belief in god with a different approach? Instead of looking for just scientific evidence and logic, why not give it a spiritual approach?

Look inside yourself sincerely with an open heart, assess yourself and see if you feel fulfilled in life. See if theres that something thats lacking, that no proof or evidence could completely fulfill. You don't have to tell us about it - cause we can't be sure if you're being honest, but do give it a go.

You said 'I don't conclude god does not exist', then why not believe in a god for a day or week etc, why not give it a go? Ask Him to guide to you to the truth - not islam, christianity or any other religion just the truth. Ask Him to help you find answers to your queries. Ask Him sincerely and see what happens for yourself instead of relying on us.

What can you lose by doing this?

[S.Belle]

I just conclude that I have seen no evidence of something that can only be possible if god exists, and that there is only one god.

Stop looking with your eyes and look with your heart. Its not about seeing God or some sign of God its about believing that there is a God.
Since there are people who are "see it to believe it" types, Messengers of God and the Quran were sent to mankind as signs.
You just choose to not accept it bc the "evidence of a consciousness" that was sent to you does not suit your liking.
We can seat here and try to explain this to you all day but your heart is just not open inshallah it will be one day when you have your "aha moment".
If not then when you die you will be able to see (with your eyes ) what you seek and by then it will be too late.

[Perseveranze]

Hmm, I am surprised. The reason is that this is something easily achievable by humans. Just get loads of Quran's printed and ship them off to very poor + mostly illiterate places in the world, pay some people to teach the modified versions. After a few decades you'd end up with quite a few people following a modified Quran. That's why it wouldn't be enough for *me*, because the effects are man-made.

I've not shifted my position once, what do you mean?

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Go see the date of when the Oldest available Quran exists and see what part of it has easily been "changed today".

Regarding the strength of belief -

‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, among others, would say: “If the veil of the Unseen were lifted up, my certainty would not increase.”

[TheRationalizer]

I have done that. I was a deist for years, I spent months meditating, talking to god, asking for guidance. I was praying more than 10 times a day every day, sometimes for over an hour.

Would you like to know what god told me? That ALL religion is wrong, including Islam. He told me that I was his messenger and that I had a message to deliver to the whole world - anonymously so that people would only know the message and not the messenger.

In short...it didn't work. I am better now.

The problem with the "ask for guidance" approach is that so many people get so many different and conflicting answers. It is therefore either purely subjective.

[aadil77]

I have done that. I was a deist for years, I spent months meditating, talking to god, asking for guidance. I was praying more than 10 times a day every day, sometimes for over an hour.

Would you like to know what god told me? That ALL religion is wrong, including Islam. He told me that I was his messenger and that I had a message to deliver to the whole world - anonymously so that people would only know the message and not the messenger.

In short...it didn't work. I am better now.

The problem with the "ask for guidance" approach is that so many people get so many different and conflicting answers. It is therefore either purely subjective.

Well if this answer of yours is the sincere truth, you can try telling that to god on the day of judgement, He will judge you justly - so you may not have much to worry about if incase islam turns out to be the truth.

What do you think?

[Perseveranze]

I have done that. I was a deist for years, I spent months meditating, talking to god, asking for guidance. I was praying more than 10 times a day every day, sometimes for over an hour.

Would you like to know what god told me? That ALL religion is wrong, including Islam. He told me that I was his messenger and that I had a message to deliver to the whole world - anonymously so that people would only know the message and not the messenger.

In short...it didn't work. I am better now.

The problem with the "ask for guidance" approach is that so many people get so many different and conflicting answers. It is therefore either purely subjective.

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Lol, you really need to read a book on Muhammad(pbuh).. I mean (lets take the miraculous Quran out the picture for a second and concentrate on the source), this is the view of pretty much every (non-Muslim) historian today;

"Only a profound belief in himself and his mission explains Muhammad's readiness to endure hardship and persecution during the Meccan period when from a secular point of view there was no prospect of success. Without sincerity how could he have won the allegiance and even devotion of men of strong and upright character like Abu-Bakr and 'Umar ? ... There is thus a strong case for holding that Muhammad was sincere. If in some respects he was mistaken, his mistakes were not due to deliberate lying or imposture[87] ....the important point is that the message was not the product of Muhammad's conscious mind. He believed that he could easily distinguish between his own thinking and these revelations. His sincerity in this belief must be accepted by the modern historian, for this alone makes credible the development of a great religion. The further question, however, whether the messages came from Muhammad's unconscious, or the collective unconscious functioning in him, or from some divine source, is beyond the competence of the historian." William Montgomery Watt

I requote - "His sincerity in this belief must be accepted by the modern historian, for this alone makes credible the development of a great religion."

and - "The further question, however, whether the messages came from Muhammad's unconscious, or the collective unconscious functioning in him, or from some divine source, is beyond the competence of the historian"

Another;

"The modern historian will not readily believe that so great and significant a movement was started by a self-seeking impostor. Nor will he be satisfied with a purely supernatural explanation, whether it postulates aid of divine of diabolical origin; rather, like Gibbon, will he seek 'with becoming submission, to ask not indeed what were the first, but what were the secondary causes of the rapid growth' of the new faith" Bernard Lewis

I requote - "The modern historian will not readily believe that so great and significant a movement was started by a self-seeking impostor."

Another;

"the really powerful factor in Muhammad’s life and the essential clue to his extraordinary success was his unshakable belief from beginning to end that he had been called by God. A conviction such as this, which, once firmly established, does not admit of the slightest doubt, exercises an incalculable influence on others. The certainty with which he came forward as the executor of God’s will gave his words and ordinances an authority that proved finally compelling." Welch

So here we have the opinion of what most Historians (or any Intellect for that matter) would say. They won't say he was an imposter, just doesn't add up at all. They won't say he was "insane" either, due to the fact that a revolution (undisputed to be the biggest in history) as such couldn't have happened in a span of 23 years by a insane man. Arabia was (as far as any standards goes) below most of what other civilizations were at. They used to bury their babies if it was a female, they used to take decisions on "chance", depending on what the arrow says. This was all completly changed around in such a big way, to the point where not only the country rulership changed, not only did the way people act change but it went all the way to the point on how people would think and what they would believe in and after the Prophets(pbuh) death, Islam spread extremely fast and the civilization continued to uprise and as we know, surpass that of any civilization of that time.

So for such reasons, the Historians or anyone that's non-Muslim unbias would have to say; "The further question, however, whether the messages came from Muhammad's unconscious, or the collective unconscious functioning in him, or from some divine source, is beyond the competence of the historian."

What's interesting is the "uncouncious" part, that must be quite something for someone to have thoughts they themselves have no control over (you know, like a dream) to keep remembering these thoughts for a period of 23 years; in which these (uncontrollable) thoughts would suddenly become (at the time) and today as regarded by all Arabs (including the non-Muslim one's) as the highest piece of Arabic literature around.

Now you may want to disgree with those intellects, but you really would have to question if there's any sense of denial here. I suppose everyone has their own opinion and their not obliged to believe others. Though, facts are pretty much there for anyone to ponder deeply over.

In an Authentic Hadith - His Companion Umar came to his house and looked in his room, and saw nothing but a hay mat which the Prophet was sitting on, which had left marks on his body. The only provisions in the house were half a Saa’6 of barley in a container, and a water skin that hung on the wall - this is all the Messenger of God owned at a time when half the Arabs were under his control. When Umar saw this, he could not control himself and wept. The Messenger of God () said: ‚Why are you weeping O Umar?‛ He replied: ‚Why shouldn’t I weep - Khosrau and Caesar enjoy themselves in this world and the Messenger of God () only owns what I see!‛ He responded: ‚O Umar, wouldn’t it please you that this is the share of Khosrau and Caesar in this life, and in the Hereafter this pleasure would be for us alone?‛

Anyways, regardless of any belief anyone has, I would like to recommend you read the book on Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) called "The Sealed Nectar". It's regarded as the most accurate and the author is very honest in it.

After reading this (if you do) you can judge for yourself whether you think he was an imposter, insane, had divine guidance OR what the other non-Muslim intellects say (until some of them revert) which is; I just dont know.

Download Link

[Saad17]

You must understand , the reason that Islam present for us being here is that we are being tested to see which can be righteous or in more better words, maintain the real human nature, only then can you understand Islam.

So in order words, there is a requirement and only when you have this requirement then God guides you.

Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) was a good man and he accepted Islam without any evidence because it was his sincerity and God's Will that guided him.

while

The Pharaoh was a rebellious and arrogant person and he wouldn't admit the miracles to be real and not magic so God left him in the darkness and drowned him.

If God really wanted man to come to Islam, He could have made us all do so but the test is to be righteous and rest is up to God.

[forthetruth]

All sound minded people who aren't led astray by you and the like will understand that knowing the message without the messenger is a miracle and that the moon splitting and only being visible to some people is a miracle. But the definition of miracle is too technical for you. It maybe that soon after your fantasy of being a messenger was over because you found yourself facing reality for a split second, and so it didn't work. Its very clear that due to your evilness you want flee from the reality. Whats also clear is that your quest to deceive people because you want them to experience what your experiencing(misery) cos you can't get yourself out, because of your unconditional love with this world isn't also working.

My Muslim Brothers and Sisters, what we should be doing is reassuring the Muslims if this disbeliever has caused the faith any harm and presenting the deserving good non-muslims who really want to know the truth with the truth. You can't guide him, it is Allah who guides.

WARNING AND REMINDER:To Muslims,
What you are witnessing here is Allah staying to true to his words “Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur)” [Chapter2 Verse 7-Holy Quran]. So be firm in your belief and never deviate. He is just trying to pull the wool over our eyes

You can never guide him only Allah guides "Verily, you (O Muhammad) guide not whom you like, but Allah guides whom He wills. And He knows best those who are the guided." [Chapter 28 56].

Read the entire thread
NON ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPTANCE OF NON EXISTENCE!

[forthetruth]

reassuring the Muslims if this disbeliever has caused the faith any harm

*caused their faith any harm.

[TheRationalizer]

Okay, the jist of what I read is this

1: Tell Allah on judgement day.

How do you know you won't be telling some other god? I think the statistics prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "praying to god with an open heart and an open mind" does not work. There are plenty of people who do this and get no answer at all, and also a lot of people who are told "Jesus is god" - why would god tell them that?


2: Muhammad was a nice bloke, and didn't believe he was making it up

That doesn't prove that the Quran is from god any more than the nice bloke who genuinely thinks he is Napoleon proves reincarnation.


3: "If God really wanted man to come to Islam, He could have made us all do so but the test is to be righteous and rest is up to God."

So this means I don't have to believe in Allah I just have to do good deeds? So what's the point of praying 5 times a day? What's the point in believing in 1 god? If a pagan believes in "mother Earth" etc but other than that they do everything right are they a bad person? Allah chose not to guide them after all didn't it?

Why would Allah chose to guide some people and not others, and then punish the non-believers with eternity in fire - the most unjust punishment imaginable?


4: "The Moon splitting only seen by some people is a miracle"

A astronomical event which should have been visible by around 50% of the planet was only seen by a handful of people, you actually think that is credible? If 50% of the Earth's population saw it then it would be a miracle, if the vision only occurs to a few people then that is a trick - because the Moon didn't really split, the people involved just thought they saw it and when using a trick you cannot trick the entire planet.

Personally I think this is more likely to have been a solar eclipse, and there was a solar eclipse during his life - most likely before this relevant chapter in the Quran. This verse could simply mean that the Moon split apart "from the Sun". Muhammad seemed to think that solar eclipses were a sign of the day of judgement (according to Hadith) and the Quran does explain how on the day of judgement the Moon will crash into the Sun (which is what a solar eclipse looks like.)

I really can't believe people still claim Muhammad split the Moon in half, really I cannot.

[forthetruth]

My Muslim Brothers and Sisters. Assalaamu Alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu.

Don't believe anything from this Athiest. Are you going to believe this self-destructive hell deserving person. Hell is made especially for him and those same as him.

Let this be the reason you look into the verses in the Holy Qur'an and the hadith and study them in-depth and realise what is happening to this person. Study this if you haven't so far. Through choosing not to believe and disobeying, after given lots of time to do so one acquires a state that no longer allows one to believe. This person didn't believe in the first instance.I haven't come across this persons situation before, it's the first time i've discussed with an Atheist. This just makes me wanna know more about Islam. i haven't done much dawah. I'm studying this at the moment, you guys study what you can, then we'll discuss his situation amongst ourselves... Seek knowledge! We can help each other we are open to receive God's guidance. This person cannot be helped. What i'm reading matches this persons situation.
Ignore what this person is saying. This person is being punished by Allah. STUDY! DON'T DO THE SAME AS HIM.

[Saad17]

Okay, the jist of what I read is this

1: Tell Allah on judgement day.

How do you know you won't be telling some other god? I think the statistics prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "praying to god with an open heart and an open mind" does not work. There are plenty of people who do this and get no answer at all, and also a lot of people who are told "Jesus is god" - why would god tell them that?

Alright, The Creator will be on the Judgment day, happy?

2: Muhammad was a nice bloke, and didn't believe he was making it up

That doesn't prove that the Quran is from god any more than the nice bloke who genuinely thinks he is Napoleon proves reincarnation.

Well he is labeled as the best character in human history but nonetheless the prophecy of a prophet like Moses (PBUH) points to Muhammad (PBUH) because he was born of normal parents, brought a new law, was a ruler, died a natural death . So now we just need to prove that this prophecy is from God.....(ok I screwed up there). At least Muhammad (PBUH) lived up to being a figure who you may follow, an example.

3: "If God really wanted man to come to Islam, He could have made us all do so but the test is to be righteous and rest is up to God."

So this means I don't have to believe in Allah I just have to do good deeds? So what's the point of praying 5 times a day? What's the point in believing in 1 god? If a pagan believes in "mother Earth" etc but other than that they do everything right are they a bad person? Allah chose not to guide them after all didn't it?

Why would Allah chose to guide some people and not others, and then punish the non-believers with eternity in fire - the most unjust punishment imaginable?

Yes, Allah guides whoever He likes and then He describes the people He likes and He says that its His responsibility to guide such people.

Allah gives us detail in the Quran, e.g in one place


2:2. This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah.
3. Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;
4. And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.
5. They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.

[TheRationalizer]

ForTheTruth, let me point out the errors in your offensive post for you.

Are you going to believe this self-destructive hell deserving person. Hell is made especially for him and those same as him.

Nobody deserves hell. The very idea that any "crime" committed within a finite life time can warrant an eternal punishment is disgusting. It's the eternity that makes it unfair. What crime deserves punishment that lasts 1 billion years? What about 10 billion years or 100 billion years? Now take into account that 100 billion years (which you cannot even imagine) is not even 50% of the punishment, nor 1% of the punishment. In fact 100 billion years is not even a 100 billionth of a percent of the punishment.

Eternity is forever. There is no more unjust a punishment than one that lasts for eternity. To believe that someone actually deserves to be burned alive is disgusting, to believe that someone believes to be burned past their life and for eternity into their death is hideous. How can you possibly believe that god is a god of love if it would create such a place and then send people there?

Through choosing not to believe and disobeying

I think you didn't read my short life story.

I was a deist for probably all of my life, talking to god on a daily basis and constantly worrying what god would think not only of my actions but also my every thought. At the age of about 32 I started to look at Islam. I prayed 10 or more times a day, I called god "Allah", I prostrated when I prayed, I faced Mecca when I did so, I didn't drink/smoke, I grew my beard, I gave more than 5% to charity, I was learning Arabic so I could read the Quran.

I used to not only ask Allah to guide me, but BEG him to guide me. Could you please explain exactly how this could possibly be interpreted as "choosing not to believe"?

after given lots of time to do so one acquires a state that no longer allows one to believe.

Over 30 years of believing in god, then over a year of living a life more like a Muslim than 90% of the Muslims I know? I have only been an atheist now for 13 months. I think your statement is somewhat incorrect.

This person didn't believe in the first instance

As I have pointed out you could not be more wrong.

This just makes me wanna know more about Islam.

Good for you, I am not attempting to convince you not to look into your religion.

This person cannot be helped.

And why is it that I deserve not to be helped by Allah, but the father of my Muslim school friend who used to beat his wife and burn my friend with a hot poker from the fire DOES?

He believed in Allah and Muhammad, yet he physically abused his family. Then there is me who believed in god since I was a child, living my life as a Muslim for over a year, and begging Allah to guide me and what do I get? Other than the delusion that I am god's messenger....nothing.

Does Allah not guide those who genuinely seek guidance? Is Allah not the most just? I see no justice here, just different people asking for guidance and their minds coming up with answers that make the most sense to them.

This person is being punished by Allah.

Punished for what exactly?
Not wanting god? No, I believed for over 3 decades.
Not wanting Muhammad to be god's messenger? No, I wanted it a lot.
Associating gods with Allah? Never occured to me.
Eating pork? No, not for over 14 years now.
Smoking? Never.
Drinking? I hadn't touched alcohol for years.
Having sex with women other than my wife? No.
Having sex with men or animals? No.
Stealing? No.
Not giving 2.5% of my income to charity? No, I give more like 5%.
Beating my wife and children? No.
I rarely eat meat. When I do it's chicken, and even that I STILL buy from a fast food place which is Halal.

I'm running out of ideas now, perhaps you can help me? Tell me what I am doing wrong in my life that makes me deserve Allah's punishment that you do not see in the behaviour of Muslims that you know. Please, do tell me!

STUDY! DON'T DO THE SAME AS HIM.

Which is what? What is it that I am doing that these people should avoid? They really need to know because they don't want the unjust eternal punishment of fire do they? I'm sure everyone will be interested to know what I did wrong for 36 years of my life which ended up in Allah choosing to answer "All religion is false, I have a new message for you". We need to know, because I certainly don't.

And yes, I too implore people to study. Study your religion, study other religions, study psychological behaviours, study science, study evolution, STUDY!

But most of all remember this. The truth can withstand scrutiny, only a lie demands you believe it on trust.

[Saad17]

Be righteous and Allah will guide you. Thats it.
And even He doesn't guide you, He'll just judge you based on your deeds but the main point is that you will be judged. Thats all.

e.g you don't need Islam to tell you that lying,stealing,killing are bad , you know this because Allah has given you the knowledge . You will get guidance when you properly use it then Allah teaches why you shouldn't steal,kill or lie and gives you a strong reason why you should continue living your righteous life and not a sinful one through Islam.

[TheRationalizer]

Be righteous and Allah will guide you. Thats it.
And even He doesn't guide you, He'll just judge you based on your deeds but the main point is that you will be judged. Thats all.

e.g you don't need Islam to tell you that lying,stealing,killing are bad , you know this because Allah has given you the knowledge . You will get guidance when you properly use it then Allah teaches why you shouldn't steal,kill or lie and gives you a strong reason why you should continue living your righteous life and not a sinful one through Islam.

So, Allah guides whom it wills, and leaves those astray whom it wills. After all the efforts I went through why would I deserve not only to be left astray but actually led astry (told "All religion is false including Islam")? It's not what I wanted to hear, and all of my efforts were genuinely to be in touch with god and for no other reason.

The point is. Not only was I NOT guided, I was expressly misguided. I was told that there is NO religion of god on Earth. So what's that all about? Does that not prove that "praying to god with an open heart and an open mind" is completely subjective seeing as so many people get different and conflicting "guidance"?

What makes you more special than me that you deserve guidance and I do not? Were we not born equal? I certainly think we were.

[Saad17]

So, Allah guides whom it wills, and leaves those astray whom it wills. After all the efforts I went through why would I deserve not only to be left astray but actually led astry (told "All religion is false including Islam")? It's not what I wanted to hear, and all of my efforts were genuinely to be in touch with god and for no other reason.

The point is. Not only was I NOT guided, I was expressly misguided. I was told that there is NO religion of god on Earth. So what's that all about? Does that not prove that "praying to god with an open heart and an open mind" is completely subjective seeing as so many people get different and conflicting "guidance"?

What makes you more special than me that you deserve guidance and I do not? Were we not born equal? I certainly think we were.

I told you that Allah tells us what kind of people He likes to let go astray and what kind of people He likes to guide .

Second of all the difference between you and me is that you believe that God can answer you directly. I sometimes think that Allah might not chose me for something, like I'm so Al-Mehdi or whatever but the point is simple. Allah talks through revelations . So yes as a Muslim I don't believe that I have direct communication to God otherwise I would be doing crazy things and justifying them through God.

"It is not fitting for a man that God should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by sending of a messenger to reveal with God's permission what God wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise " 42:51

Only exception was Moses (PBUH).

[TheRationalizer]

the difference between you and me is that you believe that God can answer you directly.

I believe(d) god can do absolutely anything. I didn't require him to send me a note in writing, I *begged* that if he has a religion that he guided me to it. Either he chose to tell me that all religion is man made, or my own brain created it and I mistook it for guidance from Allah. So if it is impossible to tell the difference between what Allah guides and what your own brain makes up then what's the point of "praying with an open mind and an open heart"? There is plenty of statistical evidence to show that this is a massively ineffective way of determining the truth of the matter.

I told you that Allah tells us what kind of people He likes to let go astray and what kind of people He likes to guide .

If I am not mistaken Shirk is the ONLY sin that Allah will never forgive, am I correct? So Allah chooses to send polytheists astray and then because it is an unforgivable sin they are then punished in hell fire for all eternity?

Does that sound even *slightly* just to you?

[M.I.A.]

I believe(d) god can do absolutely anything. I didn't require him to send me a note in writing, I *begged* that if he has a religion that he guided me to it. Either he chose to tell me that all religion is man made, or my own brain created it and I mistook it for guidance from Allah. So if it is impossible to tell the difference between what Allah guides and what your own brain makes up then what's the point of "praying with an open mind and an open heart"? There is plenty of statistical evidence to show that this is a massively ineffective way of determining the truth of the matter.




If I am not mistaken Shirk is the ONLY sin that Allah will never forgive, am I correct? So Allah chooses to send polytheists astray and then because it is an unforgivable sin they are then punished in hell fire for all eternity?

Does that sound even *slightly* just to you?

what do you mean by shirk?
a practical definition.

[TheRationalizer]

what do you mean by shirk?
a practical definition.

The deification or worship of anyone or anything other than Allah, or more literally the establishment of "partners" placed beside Allah.

[Saad17]

The deification or worship of anyone or anything other than Allah, or more literally the establishment of "partners" placed beside Allah.

Its just partners with Allah when you know that Allah is one.

E.g Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) was an idol worshiper because at that time, he didn't knew about Allah being one so he was not a sinner but then Muhammad (PBUH) came with the message of Allah being one so Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) admitted his error and submitted to Allah. Now if he commit shirk then its an actual sin but its not an unforgivable sin . Allah says that I can forgive any sin but if you have committed shirk while you know that Allah is one and didn't repent before dying then yes, Hell.

[Saad17]

Please remember that sin is an act which you do when you have no good reason except Satan's temptation.

e.g If you steal because you're poor and hungry then its not a sin, if you are rich and can easily get food and still steal without a good reason then its a sin, you have to repent in order to erase this sin.

Also who choose beside Allah (when you knows that Allah is the only God) as an object of worship is misguided and gone far astray but only repentance can bring him back.

[aamirsaab]

Hello rationalizer.

Thought I would pop in and give some food for thought.

...
Nobody deserves hell. The very idea that any "crime" committed within a finite life time can warrant an eternal punishment is disgusting. It's the eternity that makes it unfair. What crime deserves punishment that lasts 1 billion years? What about 10 billion years or 100 billion years? Now take into account that 100 billion years (which you cannot even imagine) is not even 50% of the punishment, nor 1% of the punishment. In fact 100 billion years is not even a 100 billionth of a percent of the punishment.

Eternity is forever. There is no more unjust a punishment than one that lasts for eternity. To believe that someone actually deserves to be burned alive is disgusting, to believe that someone believes to be burned past their life and for eternity into their death is hideous. How can you possibly believe that god is a god of love if it would create such a place and then send people there?

This is all based on your opinion of what is justice. It's a common argument put forth by non-muslims, but understandable (to me anyway). You speak of an eternity of punishment being unfair...you realise the severity of the crime being commited, right? You need to put things in context, this isn't a petty theft crime case. We're talking about blasphemy of the highest order.

But, I would like you to consider the relative ease required to fulfil even the basic criteria for paradise. Namely being a righteous, honourable human being. Also, the fact that deeds are positively weighted. By this I mean, good deeds outweigh bad deeds 10 to 1; and the mere intention of a good deed outweighs a bad one, 1 to 0. The system is targeted to rewarding human beings with positive qualities.

I'm running out of ideas now, perhaps you can help me? Tell me what I am doing wrong in my life that makes me deserve Allah's punishment that you do not see in the behaviour of Muslims that you know. Please, do tell me!

Do you know for certain you will end up in Hell? I personally don't know anyone who is sure of where they will end up.

EDIT: some people are getting a little over excited about this thread. Calm down please, it's just the internet.