How do you disbelieve in Allah !!!

[Salmaan]

How do you disbelieve in Allah !!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you disbelieve in Allah, seeing that you were dead and He gave you life! Then He will cause you to die, then He will give you life, then unto Him you will return. [Al Qur'an (2:28)]

How do you disbelieve in Allah! How do you commit this act of kufr? How do you cover up this reality (the reality of Allah), seeing that you were dead - you were lifeless, not existing, not known or mentioned - and He gave you life?

How do you disbelieve in Allah! How with unlimited number of question marks and exclamation marks. This statement demonstrates how strange and unnatural this act of kufr (disbelief) is, being aware that one did not exist before and thus ignoring the Cause of existence. How would you disbelieve in the One Who gave you life and will cause you to die? And not only that but will give you life again and then calls you for accountability.

How do you disbelieve in Allah! How do you inflate yourselves with false pride, which is the main key of kufr [1], knowing that you were dead and will certainly go back to that state? Being aware of your beginning and of your end, and seeing that you have no control over both, you are indeed expected to be humble without having one iota of pride. How do you disbelieve in Allah! How come you are unthankful to the One Who endowed you with the bounty of life and what it contains! Who endowed you with the faculties of hearing, seeing and understanding. In fact, humans are completely enveloped by God's favors. Thankfulness is the befitting and expected act from you not kufr (ungratefulness).

When we see an individual treating his or her mother badly, we become astonished and hate that kind of behavior. Surely our astonishment and hatefulness of such behavior increase when we realize the continuous effort of the mother and the care she provides her child with. The action of such individual is clearly a severe act of ungratefulness. And if this is the case, then what about the One Who created us and our mothers, the One Who provides for us and for our mothers? It becomes then clear that the act of ignoring the favors of Allah (glory be to Him) exceeds all limits of injustice and ungratefulness. Ignoring the favors of the Creator is surely a crime beyond description.

In fact, if Allah is not thanked whom else will be thanked? If Allah is not obeyed whom else will be obeyed? And it Allah is not worshiped whom else will be worshiped?

How do you disbelieve in Allah! How do you disbelieve in the One Who is that great (all greatness) and, Who is that able (all ability)! How do you disbelieve in the One Who brought you to existence and Who is to recreate you after death! How do you disbelieve in the One Who owns you fully and nothing happens in the universe except as a result of His will? He is indeed the One to be conscious of and the One to be respected. How do you disbelieve in the One Whom you will return to for accountability and there is no escape from meeting Him?

Allah is indeed our Owner. We are His property. A property that is completely dependent and is disparately in need of its Owner. And an Owner Who is in no need to His property and His property does not in any way increase His unlimited richness.

How do you disbelieve in Allah! How do you deny the resurrection and accountability, knowing that you were dead and Allah gave you life? It is extremely ignorant to doubt the ability of Allah (glory be to Him) - the One Who originated you to give you life again. And it is also foolish to ignore the seriousness and purposefulness that is ingrained in creation that strongly point out towards eventual accountability.

How do you disbelieve in Allah! How do you commit shirk (worshiping others with Allah or giving the attributes of Allah to others), which is one of the severest forms of kufr, whereas Allah is the only One Who gave you life, the only One that will cause you to die then live again, and the only One that will bring you for full accountability.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) defined shirk saying- "That you make somebody or something similar to Allah, while He created you." In the Qur'an Allah (glory be to Him) says: "Yet they ascribe as partners unto Him the jinn . Although He did create them, they falsely, having no knowledge, attributed to Him sons and daughters. Glorified be He and exalted above (all) that, they ascribe (unto Him)," 6:100. We notice here, in the Qur'anic verse and the Prophet's saying, the exclamation about the act of giving the attributes of Allah or describing Him in human terms (attributing to Allah human qualities), while Allah is the Only Creator.

How do you disbelieve in Allah! How do you deny the existence of the Creator, while you are created and surely you have not created yourselves? Also nothingness can not be the Cause of your existence. How do you deny the Cause of your existence? It is like a machine denying the existence of its maker and not obeying his or her commands.

It the universe and what it contains is not enough for any sane individual, proving the existence of the Creator, then there are only two possibilities. First, the individual's mind is not functioning right, which means that the individual's faculty of understanding is shielded by various desires and self interest. The second possibility is that there is a problem of conception. If the individual views God, for example, as a trinity or as a white bearded being located at one of the far planets or stars, then how would one prove the existence of such being!

In reality Atheism (denying the existence of God) grows and flourishes in environments or situations where wrong beliefs are being inherited or adopted. In a society where mysticism, for example, is prevalent and being practiced one would certainly find people reacting properly or improperly to such nonsense, going to various directions like Atheism, Agnosticism or rarely the correct belief and understanding.

At times one hears some Muslims talking about the difficulty to prove the existence of God which is indeed unexpected and saddening. This kind of claim should only come from people following and promoting other belief systems that are not based on understanding and evidence. This is because if such people prove the existence of God logically, they would be unable to continue this process for unproven illogical other aspects, like for example, the trinity or the attributes claimed to be acquired by the so called saints.

Proving the existence of God is so simple to demonstrate and understand. One does not need to have a special experience, study or training. What is needed is simply the life experience of being here surrounded with the universe and its components (including humans and their life supporting systems).

Some people also claim that the belief in God is something internal; that is based on one's internal feelings. Surely the human nature, the built-in nature (the Fitrah), is a factor in the individual confirmation of the existence of God, but it is certainly not the only evidence. Furthermore, the human's built-in nature can be covered up with all kinds of whims and desires and thus becomes unable to function property. Therefore, depending on the inner feelings as the sole factor of proving the existence of God is clearly erroneous.

What can be said here is that the Fitrah, the uncorrupted built-in nature of the human, resonates happily with the Truth. It resonates greatly with the overwhelming evidence proving the existence of the Creator and describing His unimaginable great attributes.

[1] Al Qur'an, 40:35, 40:56.

[Trumble]

Was that meant as a question for debate?

On the assumption that was , I personally disbelieve because there is no evidence for the existence of God that I find remotely convincing. There is however much evidence the other way, not least of which is infamous "problem of evil". I've seen all the 'responses' to that one - Ansar has linked to the most common in the "why are children born handicapped" thread - and find them totally unsatisfactory, verging on desperate.

[Salmaan]

Was that meant as a question for debate?

No.

This is the true message.
It is the truth. Allah is The True Lord, The Lord of the universe, The Lord of the 'alamin (makind,jinn and all that exists).
Allah is The All-Knower of the unseen and the seen, The All-Knower of all the things.
There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah.
Prophet Muhammad sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam is the believeing slave and the final messenger of Allah

[ManchesterFolk]

How do you disbelieve in Allah, seeing that you were dead and He gave you life! Then He will cause you to die, then He will give you life, then unto Him you will return. [Al Qur'an (2:28)]

When did that happen? I don't remember that.

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

[QuranStudy]

On the assumption that was , I personally disbelieve because there is no evidence for the existence of God that I find remotely convincing. There is however much evidence the other way, not least of which is infamous "problem of evil". I've seen all the 'responses' to that one - Ansar has linked to the most common in the "why are children born handicapped" thread - and find them totally unsatisfactory, verging on desperate.

Let's use logic for a change to prove a God exists:

Does God Exist?

How to speak with an atheist

The first link is a very good ebook that logically proves God exists. The second is a lecture by Zakir Naik.

When did that happen? I don't remember that.

Do you remember anything before you born??? You were nothing.

[Trumble]

No.

This is the true message.

Then why post it in a debating forum? The purpose of this place is discussion of comparitive religion, not preaching the "true message". Whatever a poster's take on that may be. Or so I thought, anyway!

Let's use logic for a change to prove a God exists:

........

The first link is a very good ebook that logically proves God exists.

"A change"?!!

There is no "logical proof" that God exists, only flawed attempts. Likewise there is no logical proof that He doesn't exist, only flawed attempts. Philosophers and theologians have been having a stab at both since long before Mohammed was born.

[Salmaan]

"A change"?!!

There is no "logical proof" that God exists, only flawed attempts. Likewise there is no logical proof that He doesn't exist, only flawed attempts. Philosophers and theologians have been having a stab at both since long before Mohammed was born.

Brother, the existence of God can never be proved.
We Muslims believe in the unseen, as God has ordered us to do so.
That is what is called faith, believing in the unseen.

[Ghazi]

:sl:

Sadly some disbelievers will believe when it's too late ie, Judgement Day

[snakelegs]

i believe in god - but not in religion.

[جوري]

:sl:

Sadly some disbelievers will believe when it's too late ie, Judgement Day

I thought all foolishness can only be expiated by/at death? When we all have a chance to see truth......
لَقَدْ كُنتَ فِي غَفْلَةٍ مِّنْ هَذَا فَكَشَفْنَا عَنكَ غِطَاءكَ فَبَصَرُكَ الْيَوْمَ حَدِيدٌ {22}
[Shakir 50:22] Certainly you were heedless of it, We have removed your veil, your sight today is sharp........
:eek:

[جوري]

i believe in god - but not in religion.

for a very long time I did also..... but then one day I woke up and thought... what would God want me to do with the fact that I know of him? how do I show gratitude or open communication? and it hit me...... prayer is a constant open communication... sadly I never prayed before my twenties....... I was missing much......:hiding:

[snakelegs]

for a very long time I did also..... but then one day I woke up and thought... what would God want me to do with the fact that I know of him? how do I show gratitude or open communication? and it hit me...... prayer is a constant open communication... sadly I never prayed before my twenties....... I was missing much......:hiding:

i pray and thank god fairly often....i just don't follow any religion or any set prayers.
i'm not saying this is right or wrong - it works for me!

[جوري]

I hope I didn't give you the impression that what I am doing is right or what you are doing is wrong.... maybe God won't accept any of my prayers who knows? I however was trying to relate to your experience....... for a long time I just believed in God and that was it.....

[snakelegs]

I hope I didn't give you the impression that what I am doing is right or what you are doing is wrong.... maybe God won't accept any of my prayers who knows? I however was trying to relate to your experience....... for a long time I just believed in God and that was it.....

no, i didn't think that. i just felt a need to clarify - don't know why!

[Salmaan]

Allah states in the Holy Qur'an:

"... whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy Hand-hold, that never breaks..." (Qur'an 2:256).


Allah states:

"The Religion in the sight of Allah is Islam." (Qur'an 3:19)

In another verse of the Holy Qur'an, Allah states:

"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (Submission to Allah), Never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (their selves in the hell fire)."(Qur'an 3:85)

In addition, Islam is the only religion prevailing over all other religions. Allah states in the Holy Qur'an:

"To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety:..." (Qur'an 5:48)

[Curaezipirid]

Alaikumassalam,

I have not read any post in this thread because I find that the question insults. By asking "how DO you disbelieve in Allah" it is asking to put the mind towards black magic.

I will not answer. I will only state insha Allah no more questions of this nature will ever be asked.

mu'asalam

Now I read the first post and see it is a direct translation from Qur'an: is there any better translation?

Seeing that I am that I became alike to dead only by reading that translation? But is that not what Qur'an and ahadith may alone impart. So thereby it is valid that I disputed the thread being so titled without such therein being identified.

mu'asalam

mu'asalam

[chitownmuslim]

maybe God won't accept any of my prayers who knows?

Inshalla he'll accept ur prayers sister PurestAmbosia...

[Woodrow]

:sl: Sister Curaezipirid,

At first I was quite taken back at how you could have found the thread title so offensive.

Now, after looking at it and trying to see different ways it could be seen, I think I see why it offended you. It can be taken as an attack on an Allah(swt) believing person, insinuating that the person does not believe in Allah(swt). That is if a person views it as being intended for all people and not directed at Athiests.

Another possibility it can be viewed that the thread is an instruction manual to teach a person how not to believe in Allah(swt)

This is an excellent example of how different people can see the exact same words and come to such different conclusions.

Perhaps this may be a reason why some people do not believe in Allah(swt). We all tend to interpret what we see in different manners. Perhaps that is why what makes so much sense to some people is meaningless to others.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:
I argued on the basis of this verse from Surat al-Baqarah in the following thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post275138

:w:

[Abdul Fattah]

Was that meant as a question for debate?

On the assumption that was , I personally disbelieve because there is no evidence for the existence of God that I find remotely convincing.

Believing is something that is done without evidence.

There is however much evidence the other way, not least of which is infamous "problem of evil". I've seen all the 'responses' to that one - Ansar has linked to the most common in the "why are children born handicapped" thread - and find them totally unsatisfactory, verging on desperate.

I take it you're refering to the riddle of Epicurus which asks: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing, then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing, then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing, then why call him God?

Well God created us with freedom of choice. This allowed us to acquire the highest ranks but at the same time the lowest depths. One couldn’t see this as malevolent on his part, since we have the responsibility of our own evil acts. The reason Allah (s.w.t) doesn’t stop us from using our freedom of choice negatively is because that would defeat the purpose of creating us with that freedom. Allah (s.w.t.) wants to test us, separate those who will use their freedom negatively from those who’ll use it positively. of course not everything "bad" on this world is due to people. As for the things people aren’t responsible for. I can see how you would describe them as bad. And I understand if one of them hits you personal that you experience it as a bad and unfortunate event. But you judge them as such because you fail to consider two basic pieces into this puzzle. First of all, this puzzle is all about people being created by a creator. We’re given an existence and a limited stay on this earth. Holding a grudge against your creator because your stay here is limited doesn’t make sense. Since this limited stay is a test, the end of a person’s stay is covered under the veil of death. Would it not be covered, then it would ruin the “test” for the rest of us that stay behind; thus making religion obvious rather then a question of believe. The second thing you missed out is that this puzzle claims that death is a transition, and that everybody will be rewarded according to what they earn after it. That puts the “disaster” into perspective.
Well that still doesn’t cover “all” bad things. What about the people who aren’t killed by a natural disaster, but left wounded or sick without their family homeless and starving. Why is there so many suffering who does death occur so slow?
Again, the bad nature of those things are relative. For some people a slow death might give them the opportunity to repent for their sins. And when facing death, even an atheist will start to pray. So consider that relatively long death in perspective to an infinite afterlife in either hell or heaven. Then consider that the length of dieing might have an influence in that destination. Another factor to consider is that our sufferings might have a weight in the scales of judgment. A person with nothing then hardships has had a different test then a person with a picture-perfect life. And just like a written exam in school, exams are meant to test a person, not to test the persons luck with the questions he is dealt. So if different students get different questions their grade is not a simple sum of the number of questions they got right, the weight of the questions matters to. As demonstrated in the following hadith about sickness for example:
“Whenever a hardship affects the Muslim, he will be forgiven for it even when he is picked by a spike.” (Reported by Muslim).
Ummu as-Sa'ib cursed fever, to which the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) told her: 'Do not curse fever, for it takes away the sins like the blaze (fire) takes away the impurities of iron.' (Reported by Muslim)

Now, I can understand that since you don't believe in all these things like the afterlife and so on which I build my answer on that you hence don't hold a lot of value to my response. However I think you'll be forced to agree that If you have an argument against Islam, then that argument is flawed when it doesn't take under consideration all the difrent aspects whitin Islam.

[glo]

Since this thread seems to have opened up to sharing own views, I will try to explain my own reasons.

As a Christian I do believe in God, even in the God of Abraham ... so that's something we have in common.

If you are asking why I don't follow Islam, I have to say that the reason is plain and simply that Islam doesn't speak to me. :rollseyes
To me, it lacks life, it lacks divine spark, it doesn't touch me or move me in the way Christianity does.
Now I don't mean to offend anybody when I say that. I am aware that many people are touched by and passionate about Islam. I see those people here! :)
But no matter how much a read and understand about Islam, it continues to leave me cold.

You see, I am not worried about that.
My husband, who is an atheist, sometimes says 'If God really wants me, and he is so powerful, then he is welcome to convince me that he is real!'
You know, I agree with him. God touches our lives, and chooses to move our souls when his timing is right ... as long as we are open to him.
I believe God to be loving, caring and all-powerful.

I commit myself to God's will daily. I desire nothing more than to fulfill the purpose he has for me.
I pray daily that God will search my heart and remove anything that is not pleasing to him. And that he will fill me with everything that is good and right, to make me the person he has destined me to be.
I am convinced that as long as I do that, I am safe with God.
If ever he wanted me to leave my faith and follow another, he could move me to do so!
My trust is in God first! As long as walk with him, I have no fear.

Until now, God has not prompted me to change my faith.
Until he does so, I will continue to follow Jesus as the Son of God and my personal saviour. :statisfie

Peace.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

:salamext:

i kinda believe Allah swt only guides those who truelly desire guidance,

"who he guides none can misguide and who he misguides non can guide!"

the understanding is free-will, u wanna b guided? Allah inshaAllah will guide you, u wanna b ignorant? Allah will leave u to ur ways and let u dwell.


The disbelievers only disbelieve because they want to disbelieve, the nafs, you kno the way that jew got the people to worship the golden calf during the time of Musa and Harun AS, why did he do it? He felt like it, simple as that, NAFS!


Nafs makes people disbelieve... thats what i think ! pomp and glitter of the dunya....

Those who desire the life of the present and its glitter,- to them we shall pay (the price of) their deeds therein,- without diminution.

Surah Hud Verse 15

^ That is the reason people think they are so happy, Allah pays there the price for there deeds... they dont realise the agony which awaits !

"As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Surah Al-Imran Verse 56

[Curaezipirid]

:sl: Sister Curaezipirid,

At first I was quite taken back at how you could have found the thread title so offensive.

Now, after looking at it and trying to see different ways it could be seen, I think I see why it offended you. It can be taken as an attack on an Allah(swt) believing person, insinuating that the person does not believe in Allah(swt). That is if a person views it as being intended for all people and not directed at Athiests.

Another possibility it can be viewed that the thread is an instruction manual to teach a person how not to believe in Allah(swt)

This is an excellent example of how different people can see the exact same words and come to such different conclusions.

Perhaps this may be a reason why some people do not believe in Allah(swt). We all tend to interpret what we see in different manners. Perhaps that is why what makes so much sense to some people is meaningless to others.

Yes and yes yes,

There are two complimentary fact in play. The first is that Qur'an, but also very much of Gospel, has always been written so that any person determined in non-belief can readily read it as though we are all faulted for believing; that is if they so choose to break the text up into small pieces that can be assumed of meaning by lossing context. The second is simply that there are many persons whom need that a thing is told in telling about what it is not, and also what is not what it is not, until there is not possibly denial left undenied.

Factually the title of this thread is very affirming in Allah for such persons, and I was a little rapid in my approach to a response. So my apology for that. I am in a situation where my true belief has been denied repeatedly to my face so often that I am unable to accomodate any further assumptions of such upon my self, and it is in that feeling that I made the post, but as I tell, it was hasty of me, so my apology.

How . . . well it is that I was in full reconciled belief when I read, but if in any expressions otherly, slothful of course.

do . . . . this is where I had a concern as to the translation, and I also took offense; can it be that I am "doing" any other person into mistaking Allah? maybe it is possible, but not that any answer could be given if so, yet in truth simply I do not, but that I am accorded to in Allah, if doing is the correct verb to apply ever

you disbelieve in Allah . . . . .

. . . . is it possible for the whole to translate from the Arabic as something like: What is the real feeling in your expressions that are not expression of reality in Allah?

Thanks for the considerate response Woodrow,

Steve, I can not believe without evidence, and am not convinced that any person should: yet I experience evidence of Allah's existing in my very breath and the ground under my feet and sky over my head, as a minute by minute sensory experience, so thereby what more evidence can I need: is it that this is also what you were meaning rather than that belief need no evidence? Or is it that you were meaning more that we must believe in our own self; since it is more important in a ill world to believe in owning our own ills than to believe in that future we will experience in Allah: so then belief relates to the evidence only of self observation, but yet evidence. . . ? I wonder if you can perceive my perspective?

glo, I too have more true feeling in Isa than in Qur'an and Mohammed, Peace goes with Him always also in Jesus. I am, however, in absolute and permanent commitment in Islam, in belief that Islam is the real shell that true Christian Faith needs, and in belief that modern Christianity has been at fault in preventing many Muslims from sustaining Faith in Isa, and in belief that Qur'an provides to many Muslims in a way that no other previous teaching could, a way that is harsher than Gospel, to a trained ear, but once comprehended binds commitment to its cause as a permanent fact in Isa. I hope I can thereby have tempted your intellect to perhaps at least be curious and listen to Qur'an recital this Ramadan, even if it stirs unwelcome feeling: that is unavoidable but ever that reconciliable of course/ the least of Souls in worth will also be saved only through Isa, and this is Islam's true worth. I am braver in expressing in your expression so thankyou for it. Peace on Earth is/ Oh Allah but my children did

mu'asalam

[Trumble]

Believing is something that is done without evidence.

No. Believing as the result of faith is something that is done without evidence.

Now, I can understand that since you don't believe in all these things like the afterlife and so on which I build my answer on that you hence don't hold a lot of value to my response. However I think you'll be forced to agree that If you have an argument against Islam, then that argument is flawed when it doesn't take under consideration all the difrent aspects whitin Islam.

I think its a very good response, although hardly a novel one. I really have seen all of them before! I just don't find it convincing, just as I don't find any other argument for the existence of God convincing. In the absence of any direct experience of God... God "touching my life" as Glo would say, I have no reason for such faith. My own 'faith', though, makes both intellectual and experiential faith to me. I wasn't attempting to argue against Islam, or indeed Judaism or Christianity either, just stating why I personally do not believe there is a God. I believe that on the basis of evidence, but I have no "proof"; there is no more proof God doesn't exist than that He does.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

There is however much evidence the other way, not least of which is infamous "problem of evil". I've seen all the 'responses' to that one - Ansar has linked to the most common in the "why are children born handicapped" thread - and find them totally unsatisfactory, verging on desperate.

The post Trumble is referring to is here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/481930-post35.html

The 'problem of evil' is a argument in the form reductio ad absurdum - it is either logically sound or faulty. I have shown in detail in other threads (see the link in the above link) why there are several manifest flaws in the argument and it is one of the weakest arguments provided. I have provided my responses in debates with several atheists and agnostics and I welcome anyone to provide objective criticism on those arguments. Simply calling them 'desperate' and 'unsatisfactory' hopelessly fails to detract in any way from the strength of those arguments. By all means, be productive and provide objective feedback on my responses but please don't just waste bandwidth with unsubstantiated claims.

Please note, I don't mind if you wish to hold that opinion - that's entirely up to you. However, your quote above seems quite unequivocal in claiming there is more evidence against God, hence I challenge that assertion.

I think its a very good response, although hardly a novel one.

Hardly a novel one implies that it is probably one of the 'common' responses you mentioned earlier. 'Very good' yet on the 'verging on desperate'?

And how about if someone answered the 'problem of evil' by saying, "God is above logic!" - by your standards I would assume that would be a completely satisfactory response? Your position seems in conflict with your earlier posts.

Regards

[Abdul Fattah]

No. Believing as the result of faith is something that is done without evidence.

Yeah sure, but you got my point right? if you "believe" then by defenition you don't have evidence.

I think its a very good response, although hardly a novel one. I really have seen all of them before! I just don't find it convincing, just as I don't find any other argument for the existence of God convincing. In the absence of any direct experience of God... God "touching my life" as Glo would say, I have no reason for such faith. My own 'faith', though, makes both intellectual and experiential faith to me. I wasn't attempting to argue against Islam, or indeed Judaism or Christianity either, just stating why I personally do not believe there is a God. I believe that on the basis of evidence, but I have no "proof"; there is no more proof God doesn't exist than that He does.

Yes I agree, I already stated various times in other threads: personal expieriances goes a long way. The reason I made this reply was not to "proove" Islam is right, but simply to show there is no evidence against it, just as there is no evidence for it.

And naturally, when you don't believe, you see not believing as a neutral position when there is no more proof God doesn't exist than that He does.
However consider for the sake of argument, what if religion is true. Is not believing then still neutral? What if, you already had all the personal expieriances but you simply didn't connect the dots because you were unwiling to? (I'm not saying this is teh case, I'm just saying what if :) )

[Curaezipirid]

Alaikumassalam,

Hey! nobody believe at all without evidence of some sort or else they must be only imagining. We as Muslims are not to believe in imagination, it is forbidden.

Think of this: I can not manifest belief without cause.

If a person told me they could chop of a head and replace it with and elephant's head, I can not believe, because I have never found any evidence within which to believe that such could be true. Unless I wonder upon the metaphor of Ganeesh. Then I try a had upon my head of "it could mean . . ." but can only sustain belief if that hat fits.

So we believe or disbelieve according to cultural conditioning. Every culture conditions to expect evidence, but what is regarded as the actual evidence of science is what accords Faith. One culture could establish that if you get a idea in your mind you might be able to alone realise that idea: well that would be a cult not a culture. But it inspires some belief, yet it inspires that belief by falisfying some semblence of evidence in the manner in which Humans are conditioned to accept what is to be believed in. Some folk believe that they can "make money" for example. But in it all only habitual conditioning, yet can not be accorded without some degree of what seems to be evidence. That is why some folk take as evidence only that pictures come into their minds, by they need at least that to sustain any belief surely! Nobody gets about in the belief that they can make money out of thin air without something or other that is mistaken occuring in their mind in a semblence of evidence.

However Faith is distinct from cutlural conditioning. Faith is when we have been smitten by the evidence of hard cold facts. Faith is at all times able to be scientifically verified. Once verified by science Faith is sustaining.

That is, the verification that is scientific, and accords Faith, is that verification that a fact is true in every situation. While belief manifests within changiblity depending upon the world as our faulted perceptions manifest acceptance of what could be evidence. But there needs to be at least that perception that a manifestation could potentially mean something or other to believe in. That is we never completely randomly associate belief. We find faulted evidence. Faulted because the world we live in is faulted.

While Faith sustains that which exists now, even in this world, within constance that we know such is has constance and perhaps could also manifest in Jannah, or even that such will manifest in Jannah.

Think about the difference between a person whom can believe in Qur'an, because it is evidenced to them; and a person whom sustains Faith in Qur'an. The person whom sustains Faith has only experienced a higher quality of evidence. Evidence that is being commanded by Allah in a fine density of matter such that it can not be mistaken even in very dense matter. Such is the nature of a miracle.

But never fail in the confidence of our Human biology, it can not be caused to believe without there existing some cause; whether that cause be good or evil, there is a cause of every belief, and that is inseperable from the evidence by which we sustain the belief.

mu'asalam

[Trumble]

The 'problem of evil' is a argument in the form reductio ad absurdum - it is either logically sound or faulty. I have shown in detail in other threads (see the link in the above link) why there are several manifest flaws in the argument and it is one of the weakest arguments provided. I have provided my responses in debates with several atheists and agnostics and I welcome anyone to provide objective criticism on those arguments. Simply calling them 'desperate' and 'unsatisfactory' hopelessly fails to detract in any way from the strength of those arguments. By all means, be productive and provide objective feedback on my responses but please don't just waste bandwidth with unsubstantiated claims.

'Problem' implies that an at least debatable case, or cases, exists for both sides - else it would not be a problem. The 'problem of evil' is, as you know, something has been debated for the best part of two millennia. The reason it is still being debated is that ALL arguments put up on both sides are either flawed in some way or another, or counters exist that cannot be easily dismissed (that does not imply they are necessarily sound).

Those arguments form part of any self-respecting philosophy undergraduate program, which is why I haven't bothered trying to go over two thousand years worth of debate taking "my" side of the argument. Anybody interested in the topic from the philosophical angle will know all of them. "Your" responses are just repeats of the same old arguments and any attempt of mine to respond would just be a rehash of other old arguments. A "waste of bandwidth", as you put it. I have made no "unsubstantiated claims", only stated my opinion that the (implied empirical) evidence and philosophical argument are stronger 'against' than 'for'... a perfectly "productive" response to the original question.

All such arguments are "unsatisfactory", as none provide sound logical proofs - usually because it is far too easy to attack the premises. As to "desperate", that is again my opinion, but you fail to grasp the context. I don't view the philosophical arguments as particularly desperate, or at least any more desperate than many others on a multitude of subjects. As you know, it is possible to put up a reasonably strong philosophical argument for just about anything if suitably schooled in the tools for doing so. No, in my opinion what is desperate is that such arguments have to be invoked by 'believers' at all!! They do so as an attempt to justify faith when clearly the empirical evidence for the existence of God is minimal verging on zero. Quite why they do that, I'm not sure.. if faith required it it would not be faith.

And how about if someone answered the 'problem of evil' by saying, "God is above logic!" - by your standards I would assume that would be a completely satisfactory response? Your position seems in conflict with your earlier posts.

It is obviously not a completely satisfactory response in that it provides a proof neither way. It is, however, satisfactory in that it offers a hypothesis that cannot be disproved, and hence could be seen as supporting what is no more than an article of faith - which, in the absence of a satisfactory logical proof (as opposed to argument) either way, is what we are talking about. There is no conflict or contradiction with my earlier posts.

Faith is when we have been smitten by the evidence of hard cold facts. Faith is at all times able to be scientifically verified.

I've tried very hard to reconcile that with any definition of 'faith' I am aware of and have, I'm afraid, failed miserably.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

'Problem' implies that an at least debatable case, or cases, exists for both sides - else it would not be a problem.

I call it the 'problem of evil' in quotations because that is how it is commonly reffered to, not because I believe it is a problem from a religious perspective.

The 'problem of evil' is, as you know, something has been debated for the best part of two millennia. The reason it is still being debated is that ALL arguments put up on both sides are either flawed in some way or another, or counters exist that cannot be easily dismissed

The problem of evil is an argument against theism, and it is still frequently quoted today in the words of epicurus who died about 2 thousand 2 hundred years ago. It is mistaken to believe that there has been some progressive debate between two parties during this period; to the contrary there have simply been the repetition of ancient fallacies from one side. Let's examine the arguments themselves rather than just saying, "Oh this has been debated for so long that it means no one has a good argument." There are many people who have used the 'problem of evil', recieved the response, and accepted it. Dr. Jeffery Lang, an atheist convert to Islam, is a notable example as he has dedicated much of his writings to this subject.

I have made no "unsubstantiated claims", only stated my opinion that the (implied empirical) evidence is stronger 'against' than 'for'.

What do you feel you accomplished by claiming someone else's arguments were desperate while backing out of any debate on the subject, claiming it to be futile. Why the initial claim if it is futile?

As to "desperate", that is again my opinion, but you fail to grasp the context. I don't view the philosophical arguments as particularly desperate, or at least any more desperate than many others on a multitude of subjects. As you know, it is possible to put up a reasonably strong philosophical argument for just about anything if suitably schooled in the tools for doing so. No, in my opinion what is desperate is that such arguments have to be invoked by 'believers' at all!!

Actually, such arguments are responses to the atheist argument and enable people to understand the divine wisdom behind afflictions in our world. Claiming that it is used to 'justify faith' is the most ridiculous assertion. It has absolutely nothing to do with justifying faith since the answer to why people get sick does not provide proof in any way for the veracity of Islam. The response to the 'problem of evil' is only an explaination of Islamic theology.

Quite why they do that [attempt to justify faith], I'm not sure..

I'm quite amused at how an atheist raising this argument against God recieves no criticism from you but is accepted as 'evidence', while on the other hand when a theist responds to this argument by offering an explanation of their religious theology and exposing the flaws and fallacies in the argument, you dismiss their response as a futile justification of faith!

It is obviously not a completely satisfactory response in that it provides a proof neither way. It is, however, satisfactory in that it offers a hypothesis that cannot be disproved, and hence could be seen as supporting what is no more than an article of faith - which, in the absence of a satisfactory logical proof (as opposed to argument) either way, is what we are talking about. There is no conflict or contradiction with my earlier posts.

Responding to an atheist by saying "God is above logic" is obviously a response. And above you agree that it is also satisfactory. So I was right in saying that you deem it to be a 'satisfactory response' if a theist evades any debate with such a comment, but if they instead provide an in-depth explanation of the religious theology and how it views evil, that is instead declared to be 'unsatisfactory' and 'desperate'!

Thank you for affirming what I have said in your above post :)

[Curaezipirid]

The post Trumble is referring to is here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/481930-post35.html

The 'problem of evil' is a argument in the form reductio ad absurdum - it is either logically sound or faulty. I have shown in detail in other threads (see the link in the above link) why there are several manifest flaws in the argument and it is one of the weakest arguments provided. I have provided my responses in debates with several atheists and agnostics and I welcome anyone to provide objective criticism on those arguments. Simply calling them 'desperate' and 'unsatisfactory' hopelessly fails to detract in any way from the strength of those arguments. By all means, be productive and provide objective feedback on my responses but please don't just waste bandwidth with unsubstantiated claims.

Please note, I don't mind if you wish to hold that opinion - that's entirely up to you. However, your quote above seems quite unequivocal in claiming there is more evidence against God, hence I challenge that assertion.
Hardly a novel one implies that it is probably one of the 'common' responses you mentioned earlier. 'Very good' yet on the 'verging on desperate'?

And how about if someone answered the 'problem of evil' by saying, "God is above logic!" - by your standards I would assume that would be a completely satisfactory response? Your position seems in conflict with your earlier posts.

Regards

God is indeed above logic; above any logic possible by any persons since such is the correct definition of God. The sounding of "God" as opposed to "Allah", evokes that certain conviction of being Forgiven; so we must challenge all Faith that asserts "God" as of any other capacity by to cause that continuance is/ yet therein by definition outside of the logic of Men, of Shaytan, of Jinn, and ever even of his own Angels. There is no other God but He who manifestly is beyond all our comprehension.

Now I have a little commentary upon the matter of there being a supposed problem with Evil. I am Evil! Evil is Hope while Good is Faith. This is the correct science. I am female in body therefore of positive self; but I am also of passive receptive quality of Soul, ans thus at cause I am Evil. Yet I reconcile this fact well, in the light of my positive forward faceing self, and also with the Love of Allah, and Men.

Now, I have a matter to report upon as to why many Buddhists perceive that they can account for themselves without sustaining Faith in Monothiesm. Many of them related to their breath expended in sacred mantras embodying in their comprehension a similarly Evil certainty as I am defining. In Allah, a negative light Soul is manifest is full black. Such experienced within positive self is that experience of Holy acceptance of truth of being. Yet when experienced within a negative male self that can not find alone a positive future, despair results. How can One God be, the rationalise, when their own Soul so black is what calling upon Allah manifests recognition of. So they suppose that Allah, in His positive attributes is no more that the negativity of their own Soul. The Buddhist teachings are not written to accomodate any persons learning from except a positive soul in negative self and negative soul in positive self: therefore the words they use can be poison to a self whose experience is not of perfection in discerning negative from positive matter. When the male self coating a negative Soul calls the sound Allah, if it fails to recognise that in such can only exist past, and no future, then there is only less and less reality for it. This explains much that is wrong with Earth. The solution is for positive souls in female positive self, to forgive the future of excess male attributes coating negative Souls. Then we learn why there are to be many more females than males. But here I trace the very boundary of culture. Yet I have not tresspassed only borne witness to Buddhists whom have believed that the future causes the past as their only method of perceiving any worth in any Buddhist scripture.

There is no problem with Evil; it needs only small good to reconcile.

wasalam

[Trumble]

It is mistaken to believe that there has been some progressive debate between two parties during this period; to the contrary there have simply been the repetition of ancient fallacies from one side.

No, it is not "mistaken", it is fact. You just show your own bias with an "unsubstantiated claim".

ISo I was right in saying that you deem it to be a 'satisfactory response' if a theist evades any debate with such a comment, but if they instead provide an in-depth explanation of the religious theology and how it views evil, that is instead declared to be 'unsatisfactory' and 'desperate'!

I explained both why such a response would be "satisfactory" and in some detail how and why I used "unsatifactory" and "desperate". As you either can't be bothered to read that, or deliberately "waste bandwidth" choosing to ignore it, I can't see any point in debating further.