The existence of God

*hi-fives osman and muhammad.*

format_quote Originally Posted by root

I can see what you mean. The Government could raise tax levels very high and in order to avoid an outcry from it's subjects can claim that they are giving us a hard life because God is testing us!

You know, I wouldn't put it past a Conservative government.

As for a test. Why does he seem to test his most loyal the most often and hardest yet allow the kuffaars to have a relatively easy time of it.......

I find this an easy way to think of it - in a story, the protaganist, the hero, is always up against the odds, against an enemy who is seemingly indestructible. Because of his enemy's strength, the hero suffers much. However, it is this very suffering which defines him as a person.

If you still don't have a sense of what I'm trying to say, check out 'Hero with a Thousand Faces' by Joseph Campbell.

I can only think religously that is probably because Muslims will have the better life after death and the Kuffaars are in for an eternity of the nasty place "hell". But in YOUR opinion will God send a Christian or a Jew to hell.

In MY opinion, God will be the judge of that, not me.

As none of us on this forum, nor this world for a fact, know God personally, we cannot explain why God has chosen not to do something. However, you raised a good point about Africa. Now, one could interpret this as being a test to the more wealthier members of the world. Perhaps it is God's way of telling us to feed/protect them. Perhaps its is God's way of reminding us that their are "poor souls" on this planet. Until I meet God, I cannot say.

Czgibson, the tsunami is also another good point. God may have done this to punish other people or He may have done it to remind us all that we can be killed instantly.

Greetings Aamirsaab,

Do the points you mention seem like a satisfactory solution to the problem of evil to you?

The point is, do we need god to remind us that there are "poor souls" in the world? Do we need god to remind us that we can be killed at any time? I'm perfectly aware of these things even though I don't believe in god.

Peace

A person doesnt need reminding but people do

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

OK, let's use the tsunami as an example, if that's OK. So, what you appear to be saying here is that all or part of god's reason for unleashing the tsunami was to punish evil. So either some or all of the people who died in the tsunami were evil and deserved to be punished with death. Out of those who were not evil (there must have been some; children and babies, for example) do I understand you correctly: were they killed in order to test the faith of everyone else on the planet? Or were the innocent victims themselves actually being tested, to see if they would suddenly find faith in god in their last, desperate moments of life?

Greetings czgibson and root,

If you remember I said that sometimes these events are a means of punishment but I did not say always. I will also remind us that we have already discussed this issue in a different thread, but I will reiterate the main points being that we should understand such things in an Islamic context and understanding. Those that were sinful were punished and those that were babies or righteous people, if that is what you mean by 'innocent', undoubtedly were not. Babies and children die all the time, yet we do not look at their deaths as a punishment. It is just a matter of what God has decreed and how He has decided some people are to leave this world. So it should not be viewed as murder but the will of God - He gives life and He takes it. Their families are the ones being tested with patience and strength of faith, and the rest of humanity in the sense of helping in whichever way they can.

As for the deaths of the innocent: well if they were righteous people then it follows that they already had faith during their lives so I don't really see it as a question of finding faith at the last moment but rather implementing what one has practiced throughout life, and their deaths are not so tragic if we remember that it is to God to Whom they are returning, and the hereafter for what we are aiming.

Your last sentence is particularly interesting. I think it shows one of the fundamental differences between the religious mind and the scientific mind. If there are certain aspects of god's actions that are inexplicable or unknowable to us, how can we possibly know that everything he does is for a reason? If a scientist came across a situation that was inexplicable to him, he would withhold judgment until he had clearer evidence. Also, the argument that "god knows best" is the ultimate way of avoiding any further debate on the matter. Of course, an argument like this is not actually intended to answer or explain anything, it is simply a blunt way of attempting to silence critics.

God has taught mankind many things about Himself such as His Names and Attributes, of which include Him being the All-Wise, All-Knowing. He also taught us what is vital for our understanding of Islam and life, and what will ultimately allow us to attain our goal: paradise. Therefore it follows that what has not been taught is in fact unimportant and the answers to such questions are not a recommendable form of using one's time and effort. The Prophet (pbuh) actually forbade us to occupy ourselves with things that cause confusion and are not clear. Furthermore, God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and He says:

[21.23] He cannot be questioned concerning what He does and they shall be questioned.

So I hope this gives an idea of how we are to view things occurring in the world around us. There are bound to be matters that we don't quite understand or do not have full knowledge of, but we ackowledge that God Knows everything and He does everything according to His infinite Wisdom and Knowledge. We place our trust in our Creator that what He does is for a reason and He teaches us that:

[2.216] ... and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.

So knowing God reassures us that We can place our trust in Him. Saying that He Knows Best does not silence anyone except the one who recognises his limits and is not ignorant of such a fact. Sometimes in science you make predictions based upon proved theories and laws, not because it seems apparent that it could happen. I think that would be a better analagy rather than the one you mentioned, illustrating the fact that we Know God is the Creator so we accept what He decrees for us irrespective of whether we perceive it as good or bad.

The conclusion here may well be valid, but since the premise consists of six unfounded assertions, the argument has little explanatory power.

Unfounded you say, well you must remember we are discussing the perspective of world events in light of God's Decree. If you can accept that God caused the Tsunami to punish people, then you can just as easily accept that God is the One who Provides for His creatures. Interesting it is how quickly you said God is a "nasty character" yet when it comes to to acknowledging that He is the One who gave you life you deny it as though it was your own doing, or something that occurred by chance! And that is only one of the assertions; nobody is able to make their own food, clothes, houses etc. unless they have the raw materials, all of which God gave to us. For it could just as well have been us out there in Africa dying of starvation but no, God blessed us with such things so that we show gratitude and recognise His Mercy, but people still wonder "how can a God punish people?!"

OK, these are your beliefs, and I fully respect your right to believe what you wish, but none of this explains why god would send a tsunami to slaughter thousands of innocent people.

What I have said directly above is an attempt to show how God is not being unjust by punishing people, as can be understood from the concept of the covenant between mankind and God. We have already established that thousand of innocent people were not "slaughtered" so I won't bother repeating myself to such a gross inaccuracy.

I'm afraid I don't really see what you're getting at here.

An artist knows he can draw but bothers to draw a picture, similarly God Knows the outcome of His test, yet He has allowed it to take place.

format_quote Originally Posted by root

So do you think he has "forgot" to feed the poor souls in Africa since he is not even meeting the UN Basic laws of Human rights. Or are you suggesting that they are being punished by God for disobeying him. Or is it as I suspect that the West's industrial revolution caused untold environmental damage on Africa coupled with bad leadership.

As a question Muhammad which of the three are you subscribing to. And why will you not subscribe to the third.

I hope that from what I have written above will help you to understand my position on such statements, nevertheless I will attempt to clarify.

2.245] Who is it that will offer of Allah a goodly gift, so He will multiply it to him manifold, and Allah straitens and amplifies, and you shall be returned to Him.

We learn from the above verse that God is the one who increases a person's wealth and constricts another's, i.e. amplitude of wealth is in control of God. It is the duty of the rich to give to the poor and it is for the poor to have patience. Both are a means to test people and many are the ways that God tests His creatures, yet all of mankind has a common end and all Muslims, at least, have a common goal. Therefore I am afraid that neither of the three options that root has given are sufficient as an explanation. God has encouraged charity countless times in His Noble Book, and surely one can understand from this how the world system works. It is in fact obligatory on every Muslim who can afford it to give charity, so if every single capable person in the world did so, we might not even have dying people in Africa.

One thing you should understand is that just because somebody is burdened with hardship, does not automatically mean they are being punished because even sickness for a Muslim is like a blessing because it purifies a person from sins.

format_quote Originally Posted by root

If you do subscribe to the third at what point do you seperate "scientific Explanation" with "God's will"!! Since the Tsunami disaster in the new year was a natural disaster caused by continental drift. Can you provide any information for God's intervention to natural laws of science. Since if an intelligent creater created natural laws then he should break them with inpunity (such as parting the moon), is their any evidence for God intervening to prevent a natural disaster (reversing known natural laws & physics). If not, do you care to offer an explanation.

If God wants something to happen, it will happen. If he does not want it to happen, it can never happen. Please read the following well-known verse from the Qur'an, (translation of which is):

[2.255] Allah is He besides Whom there is no god, the Everliving, the Self-subsisting by Whom all subsist; slumber does not overtake Him nor sleep; whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His; who is he that can intercede with Him but by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they cannot comprehend anything out of His knowledge except what He pleases, His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth, and the preservation of them both tires Him not, and He is the Most High, the Great.

So continental drift is undoubtedly under His control, and it should be quite easy for you to accept that He can cause an Tsunami if and when He wishes. Any "natural disaster" is under the control of God so if He did not want it to happen then it would not happen. As for the concept of God's intervention to the laws of science: I dont know whether certain things break these rules or whether all events follow them, all I know is that God does as He pleases. However, certain events like the splitting of the moon do appear to go against normal laws of science and are hence considered miracles.

Regards.

Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

Here is the oldest known formulation of the problem, attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341 - 270 BCE):

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?

I do not believe that this argument has ever been answered satisfactorily.

I'm willing to deal with this question, but first we have to define evil. What do you percieve as evil? Is it possible that your perception is very limited?

If you saw a man cutting a child's arm off, you would probably say he was evil, right? But if you learned that that man was a doctor amputating the child's arm to prevent sickness that would leave him crippled for life or kill him - then that man is not evil, he is good.

As for the question of Epicurus, I would agree that God is certanly able to eradicate evil, but before I say that He is not willing, let me clarify the understanding of God's will according to Islamic theology. Shaykh Muhammad bin Saalih Al-Uthaymeen writes the following:

We believe that Allah’s Will (iraadah) is of two types:
1. Universal will (kawniyyah): So whatever occurs, happens only by His Will. It is not necessary that what occurs is actually liked by Allah. Thus, it is similar in meaning to volition (mashee’ah); as in Allah’s statement:
And if Allah had so wished, they would not have fought eachother, but Allah does whatever He wills. [Al-Baqarah 2:253]
If Allah Wills to leave you astray, He is your Lord. [Hood 11:34]

2. Legislated Will (shar’iyyah): It is not necessary that this Will should occur. This Will does not happen, except in what He loves and desires, such as in Allah the Exalted’s statement:

Allah desires to forgive you [An-Nisaa 4:27]

So according to this, I would say that God desires (shar'iyyah) that there be no evil, but He is not willing (kawniyyah) to actually enforce this desire since He has already entrusted human beings with this task. Consider an analogy. You allow a volunteer to do some job in your office which you could easily do youself, but you want them to do the work so that it will look good on their resume. Now, that's their job, you want it to get done, and you are entirely capable of doing it yourself. But you want them to do it themselves so it will benefit them.

The same is true for this world. We are given the position of God's viceroy on earth, to enjoin the good and forbid the evil. Sure, God could do it Himself, but that's not His job, its ours. He is giving us the honor of serving Him, because He loves us and wants us to have this pleasure, as well as the pleasure of the hereafter. So if there's any evil in the world its our fault for not doing our job, not God's fault. It certainly is insolent for the employee to blame the employer when the employee doesn't finish his task!

So here I've explained the 'problem' without even getting into the idea of a test or a punishment.

It may interest you to read my article which I wrote a while ago:
On the Origin of Calamity.

I hope this helps. I just skimmed through the other posts so I may have missed some important points or repeated information that has already been given, for which I apologise.

Regards.

Hi Root,

format_quote Originally Posted by root

So do you think he has "forgot" to feed the poor souls in Africa since he is not even meeting the UN Basic laws of Human rights.

Its our job to feed them, not God's!

I'll just use this as an example to elaborate on my previous post. Root, say I gave you the responsibility and money need for feeding, cleaning and taking care of my cat everyday and after about a week, I find that the cat is malnourished, dirty, suffering from disease - and you've used all the money on yourself. Furthermore, you blame me since I was fully able to take care of the cat myself!

The truth is that the money I gave you was a trust and YOU were supposed to take care of the cat. Similarly, God has blessed many human beings with so much, yet they do not fulfill their duty towards their fellow human beings and the greedily hang on to their wealth for themselves. Its our job, so we can only blame ourselves, and not God.

Hope this helps.

Greetings Muhammad,
Thank you for your long and interesting post. I will try and answer the points you raise.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

If you remember I said that sometimes these events are a means of punishment but I did not say always.

Absolutely - I'm not aware of having contradicted you on this point.

I will also remind us that we have already discussed this issue in a different thread, but I will reiterate the main points being that we should understand such things in an Islamic context and understanding.

Yes, I've been privy to a discussion on this matter, but it was quite perfunctory and I wanted to explore the issue a little further. Your posts and Ansar's have certainly given the discussion more scope.

Those that were sinful were punished and those that were babies or righteous people, if that is what you mean by 'innocent', undoubtedly were not.

If by "righteous" you mean people who are generally moral, they may have committed a few small sins but they are generally good people, then yes, those are what I would call innocent people. To me, obviously, a person's religion has no bearing on their ethical quality; an innocent person may be religious or non-religious.

Babies and children die all the time, yet we do not look at their deaths as a punishment.

I look on their deaths as tragedies.

It is just a matter of what God has decreed and how He has decided some people are to leave this world. So it should not be viewed as murder but the will of God - He gives life and He takes it.

I wouldn't call it murder, which is an action with direct legal overtones, but I still think my original word "slaughter" is appropriate, as it means "the killing of a large number of people; a massacre". (Dictionary.com)

Their families are the ones being tested with patience and strength of faith, and the rest of humanity in the sense of helping in whichever way they can.

OK, and presumably passing the test involves being faithful, and failing being unfaithful. But what if somebody has no knowledge that the test is happening? Their first instinct would be to try and survive, and after the deluge has passed, to try and get their lives back together again. None of this will necessarily involve believing in god. So, let us imagine some survivors from the tsunami who are Buddhists (as many in the area affected would have been), who have lost family members, loved ones, children - who have basically suffered an enormous tragedy in their lives. Let us imagine that they have done their best to sort themselves out, they have prayed and meditated and done all the things their religion suggests they do, but they have not suddenly begun to have faith in god, and they have not converted to Islam. They have suffered a huge amount, yet, if I understand you correctly, their suffering has only just begun, because when they die they will be subjected to eternal hell-fire, due to their lack of faith in god. This is part of what I meant by god being a "nasty character".

As for the deaths of the innocent: well if they were righteous people then it follows that they already had faith during their lives so I don't really see it as a question of finding faith at the last moment but rather implementing what one has practiced throughout life, and their deaths are not so tragic if we remember that it is to God to Whom they are returning, and the hereafter for what we are aiming.

OK, I see you are using a different meaning of the word "righteous" than me. What do you mean by "implementing what one has practised throughout life"? If they have been faithful during their lives, I don't think it would matter what they did in their last moments, as long as they didn't commit some heinous sin.

The part about their deaths being "not so tragic" shows, I believe, one of the major impulses for theistic belief. Theists often say that they don't believe in god because it is comforting to do so, yet what you say here shows that you do, in fact, believe the idea of god is comforting. I believe that part of the origin of god-belief (and indeed belief in the afterlife) stems from the fact that people find it difficult to come to terms with the reality of death. I'm not saying this is the main, or the only reason why you personally believe in god, but I definitely think it's there at some level.

Therefore it follows that what has not been taught is in fact unimportant and the answers to such questions are not a recommendable form of using one's time and effort. The Prophet (pbuh) actually forbade us to occupy ourselves with things that cause confusion and are not clear.

So the Prophet (pbuh) would have opposed all scientific inquiry, as well as the study of philosophy, economics, politics and history? These things all cause confusion, and are seldom clear; they are most definitely important, however.

So knowing God reassures us that We can place our trust in Him. Saying that He Knows Best does not silence anyone except the one who recognises his limits and is not ignorant of such a fact.

I know it does not silence anyone, but it is often used as an attempt to silence people.

Sometimes in science you make predictions based upon proved theories and laws, not because it seems apparent that it could happen.

If your prediction is based upon a proven theory or law, then it's very likely that it will happen, unless there's something wrong with the theory, or the law needs updating.

I think that would be a better analagy rather than the one you mentioned, illustrating the fact that we Know God is the Creator so we accept what He decrees for us irrespective of whether we perceive it as good or bad.

OK, this is your belief. Remember, though, that a belief can never be a fact unless it's proven not to be false.

Unfounded you say, well you must remember we are discussing the perspective of world events in light of God's Decree.

Could we focus on the implied attributes given to god by Epicurus for the purposes of his argument, rather than including any other attributes that have been added by religious tradition? I think that way we will be able to deal with the question more effectively and clearly. If you disagree then we could set out parameters for what we're talking about if you wish.

If you can accept that God caused the Tsunami to punish people, then you can just as easily accept that God is the One who Provides for His creatures.

Well, that doesn't follow logically, but I would be prepared to accept it in order to follow your argument.

Interesting it is how quickly you said God is a "nasty character" yet when it comes to to acknowledging that He is the One who gave you life you deny it as though it was your own doing, or something that occurred by chance!

I believe it did occur by chance - or something like it. You've put two of my statements together here, and I admit they look pretty stupid together. For the sake of clarity: I do not believe in god. I never have, and it's highly unlikely that I ever will. Therefore, I don't believe he gave me life. However, I have, in my life, heard lots of stories about god, some of them including what I would call "nasty" behaviour on the part of god. My point was that, in those stories, god is "a nasty character", and in my view, not worthy of worship.

And that is only one of the assertions; nobody is able to make their own food, clothes, houses etc. unless they have the raw materials, all of which God gave to us. For it could just as well have been us out there in Africa dying of starvation but no, God blessed us with such things so that we show gratitude and recognise His Mercy, but people still wonder "how can a God punish people?!"

Yes, they do still wonder that, and your argument so far does nothing to dispel that mystery.

We have already established that thousand of innocent people were not "slaughtered" so I won't bother repeating myself to such a gross inaccuracy.

Well, I'm not sure that we have, for the reasons given above.

An artist knows he can draw but bothers to draw a picture, similarly God Knows the outcome of His test, yet He has allowed it to take place.

OK, I see your point now, although I don't know if god allows the test to take place to give others aesthetic pleasure!

One thing you should understand is that just because somebody is burdened with hardship, does not automatically mean they are being punished because even sickness for a Muslim is like a blessing because it purifies a person from sins.

I did not know this. How does this purification occur? After illness, are you in a better moral state than before? Does this simply mean that while ill you are unable to sin, perhaps because you are limited in your movements etc.?

If God wants something to happen, it will happen. If he does not want it to happen, it can never happen.

This reminds me of a quote from Cicero on miracles: "What was not capable of happening never happened. What was capable of happening is not a miracle."

It looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree here, but thank you for making your position clear - I'm starting to understand it better. I'm sorry I'm so slow at getting to grips with these ideas, but I've only been blessed with a small brain (as a religious person might say), and life is for learning (as a non-religious person might say). Holding two contradictory mindsets in one mind was never going to be easy, but I'm getting there...

Peace



Regards.

Greetings czgibson,

Thankyou also for taking the time to read my post and replying.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

Absolutely - I'm not aware of having contradicted you on this point.

I apologise for not making myself clear enough, for I was referring to the part of your post where you said:

what you appear to be saying here is that all or part of god's reason for unleashing the tsunami was to punish evil. So either some or all of the people who died in the tsunami were evil and deserved to be punished with death.

You assumed here that the Tsunami was as a matter of fact all or part punishment, whereas I did not say that it was. I said it could well be, yes, but I couldn't say for sure. And if it was, then we can go ahead and try to understand why people might be being punished.

If by "righteous" you mean people who are generally moral, they may have committed a few small sins but they are generally good people, then yes, those are what I would call innocent people. To me, obviously, a person's religion has no bearing on their ethical quality; an innocent person may be religious or non-religious.

[2.22] Who made the earth a resting place for you and the heaven a canopy and (Who) sends down rain from the cloud then brings forth with it subsistence for you of the fruits; therefore do not set up rivals to Allah while you know.

[2.28] How do you deny Allah and you were dead and He gave you life? Again He will cause you to die and again bring you to life, then you shall be brought back to Him.

[2.177] It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts-- these are they who are {rue (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil).


God explains to us many times how people reject Him while they know that to Him belongs their submission and worship. He informs us in the Qur'an many times of His favours upon us, and how He made the earth a perfect dwelling place for us, yet people still set up rivals to Him, and deny His right to be worshipped alone. As can be understood from the above verses, a person who can be considered "innocent" should at least believe in Allaah. Yes everyone commits sins, yet it is those who repent for their sins and try their best to avoid them who are the successful.

I think now would be a good time to bring in a point that has not been addressed yet,

But in YOUR opinion will God send a Christian or a Jew to hell.

At the time when their respective scriptures were revealed, then originally, Jews and Christians must at some point have been believers in Allaah if they believed in the original revelations to their Prophets. This is because all Prophets and all of Allaah's Books carry the same key message: to believe in no God but Allaah. However, people deviated from the true path and thus Christianity formed, if I am not much mistaken, when the followers of Jesus went astray after his ascent to heaven. Likewise the Jews we have today are not upon the original message contained in their book, the Torah. In their example, the Jewish population knew that Muhammad (pbuh) was the Final Prophet of God, as prophecised in their Scripture, yet out of envy they rejected him and refused to believe in Islam. So God distinguishes between the people of truth and those of falsehood:

[2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

But when Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) came with the Qur'an, this abrogated all other scriptures and it was required of all to accept it:

[3.19] Surely the (true) religion with Allah is Islam, and those to whom the Book had been given did not show opposition but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves; and whoever disbelieves in the communications of Allah then surely Allah is quick in reckoning.

And some more verses to explain the position of the Jews:

[2.89] And when there came to them a Book from Allah verifying that which they have, and aforetime they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieve, but when there came to them (Prophet) that which they did not recognize, they disbelieved in him; so Allah's curse is on the unbelievers.

[2.101] And when there came to them an Apostle from Allah verifying that which they have, a party of those who were given the Book threw the Book of Allah behind their backs as if they knew nothing.

[2.146] Those whom We have given the Book recognize him as they recognize their sons, and a party of them most surely conceal the truth while they know (it).

Therefore we can understand that no other religion will be accepted of people except Islam in our current day and age.

I look on their deaths as tragedies.

Not only do we find them tragedies, but we are further taught how to deal with those tragedies - by being patient and steadfast upon our faith and not giving up hope in the Almighty, Allaah.

I wouldn't call it murder, which is an action with direct legal overtones, but I still think my original word "slaughter" is appropriate, as it means "the killing of a large number of people; a massacre". (Dictionary.com)

As I said, the deaths of such people are in the control of God. Just because a large number of people die at once does not make it a "massacre" since God has made death incumbent on each and every human being:

[3.185] Every soul shall taste of death, and you shall only be paid fully your reward on the resurrection day; then whoever is removed far away from the fire and is made to enter the garden he indeed has attained the object; and the life of this world is nothing but a provision of vanities.

While you may not have directly used the term murder, which according to Dictionary.com can also mean "to kill brutally or inhumanly", you have used terms such as God using weapons of "mass destruction" and victims of 'natural disasters' having been "killed". Such views are incorrect as God would not create us and then kill us! He told us our lives on this world would end, but that does not equate to killing us as though by evil intent. Indeed God is the Most Kind and Ever All-Appreciative of good. There is also a saying of our Prophet (pbuh) which teaches us that God loves us even more than the love of a mother for her child. And also see the verse:

[3.31] Say (O Muhammad (pbuh) to mankind): "If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL"

OK, and presumably passing the test involves being faithful, and failing being unfaithful. But what if somebody has no knowledge that the test is happening? Their first instinct would be to try and survive, and after the deluge has passed, to try and get their lives back together again. None of this will necessarily involve believing in god.

Life is about believing in God, and acting according to that belief. For people that are destined to die in an event like a Tsunami, I don't know if it is actually a test for them, which is where I think some of the confusion is coming from, because all they can do is face their death in the best way possible. Of course they try to survive but if their death is decreed then they cannot escape it. So if they spent their lives believing in God, they have passed the test of life, whereas if they wasted their lives then they have failed unless there is time to reform before death...

[4.110] And whoever does evil or acts unjustly to his soul, then asks forgiveness of Allah, he shall find Allah Forgiving, Merciful.

The test in an event like a Tsunami is perhaps more applicable to those that survive, as they are the ones who can demonstrate patience and strength, hence be rewarded for persevering through such difficult times.

So, let us imagine some survivors from the tsunami who are Buddhists (as many in the area affected would have been), who have lost family members, loved ones, children - who have basically suffered an enormous tragedy in their lives. Let us imagine that they have done their best to sort themselves out, they have prayed and meditated and done all the things their religion suggests they do, but they have not suddenly begun to have faith in god, and they have not converted to Islam. They have suffered a huge amount, yet, if I understand you correctly, their suffering has only just begun, because when they die they will be subjected to eternal hell-fire, due to their lack of faith in god. This is part of what I meant by god being a "nasty character".

OK they have just survived, so first of all that is an enormous favour of God in that He has allowed them to live for longer and thus they have more time to review their idea of the truth. Now you said that if they have done their best and prayed and meditated, "they have not suddenly begun to have faith in god", well one might ask if that is the case, that to whom exactly are they praying to? Perhaps God brought them close to death to make them realise that their idols were not of any use to them when they were most needed. Perhaps He saved them to make them realise that it is not their false gods that help them but it is He, Allaah, Who does so. It goes back to the covenant between man and God as I said before, that if we do not fulfil our part of the contract to worship God then why should we expect God to reward us for something we have not done?

[2.286] Allah does not impose upon any soul a duty but to the extent of its ability; for it is (the benefit of) what it has earned and upon it (the evil of) what it has wrought

[4.49] Have you not considered those who attribute purity to themselves? Nay, Allah purifies whom He pleases; and they shall not be wronged the husk of a date stone.

Is it more difficult to worship God the Creator than to worship powerless statues of stone? God gave mankind intelligence and many a means of guidance and it is up to him to use these things effectively. If it were impossible to recognise truth from falsehood then there would be something wrong there, but God says He does not burden any soul beyond what it can bear and that He is the Most Just.

OK, I see you are using a different meaning of the word "righteous" than me. What do you mean by "implementing what one has practised throughout life"? If they have been faithful during their lives, I don't think it would matter what they did in their last moments, as long as they didn't commit some heinous sin.

I mean that faithful people will not be finding faith at the last moment but rather their faith will teach them to accept the circumstances and die as righteous Muslims. You are right in what you say here, and as righteous people they will know how best to make the most of their last moments of life.

The part about their deaths being "not so tragic" shows, I believe, one of the major impulses for theistic belief. Theists often say that they don't believe in god because it is comforting to do so, yet what you say here shows that you do, in fact, believe the idea of god is comforting. I believe that part of the origin of god-belief (and indeed belief in the afterlife) stems from the fact that people find it difficult to come to terms with the reality of death. I'm not saying this is the main, or the only reason why you personally believe in god, but I definitely think it's there at some level.

The part about their deaths being not so tragic was an attempt to illustrate how God is not punishing innocent people and that their deaths are not in vain. While believing in God is naturally comforting, we do not believe in Him because we feel like it but rather because we know it to be the right thing. Having the sense of satisfaction is an outcome or bonus in following the truth, rather than the main reason for doing do. Some people find it comforting not to believe in God so that they won't have to worry about being accountable for their actions... hence following desires would not naturally lead one to believing in God, for if someone were to believe in the afterlife because they feared death, then they would perhaps be even more frightened when they realise there is something even worse than death i.e. Hell.

So the Prophet (pbuh) would have opposed all scientific inquiry, as well as the study of philosophy, economics, politics and history? These things all cause confusion, and are seldom clear; they are most definitely important, however.

That Prophetic teaching was actually referring to unimportant matters of religion upon which faith does not increase; I apologise for not having made it clear.

I know it does not silence anyone, but it is often used as an attempt to silence people.

No it is used to show we recognise our boundaries and limited knowledge of a subject. If we simply look at the context in which I used this concept: I was saying that I did not know whether the Tsunami and other such specific events were actually a punishment or merely a test for mankind, as this is something that God Knows best about. We can speculate and say what we think, yet ultimately the true knowledge is with Allaah since we know He has Knowledge of all things.

If your prediction is based upon a proven theory or law, then it's very likely that it will happen, unless there's something wrong with the theory, or the law needs updating.

Exactly, so if you didn't know the theory then you wouldn't know what to expect, likewise we already have knowledge of God so we understand Him better. For example: we know He is the All-Knowing, All-Wise, so obviously something that our created minds cannot understand does not mean that God is doing something wrong. He has Knowledge of past, present and future and thus we know what He does is for the best and for a reason.

OK, this is your belief. Remember, though, that a belief can never be a fact unless it's proven not to be false.

Ah, this is a typical tactic used by atheists! Remember the argument was about understanding God, so we were discussing an aspect of belief and not the evidence for belief! Whenever a point is made you resort to changing the subject or context.

Could we focus on the implied attributes given to god by Epicurus for the purposes of his argument, rather than including any other attributes that have been added by religious tradition? I think that way we will be able to deal with the question more effectively and clearly. If you disagree then we could set out parameters for what we're talking about if you wish.

Well I am answering your question in a way. If you can say that God did not bestow upon us His favours but rather we found our own food and are responsible for our state of well-being, then why attribute evil to God when it is us who kill and commit crime? It does not make sense to reject half the argument that suits your stance, and ignore the other half. Furthermore, you say God is evil yet I am showing how it is us who earn that evil when we do not fulfil our duty to obey God and show gratitude after He gave us life and blessed us with food and homes etc.

I did not read that post about Epicurus properly beforehand so now that I know where you are coming from, I shall try to make my answers more focused on it.

Well, that doesn't follow logically, but I would be prepared to accept it in order to follow your argument.

This follows on from my previous point, being that if you blame God for evil, at least blame, or rather ackowledge Him for the good aswell!

Yes, they do still wonder that, and your argument so far does nothing to dispel that mystery.

I thought it would at least help in making you understand the simple fact that if you don't fulfil your duty, why should God fulfil His? If you feed and clothe a slave that belongs to you, and then he goes and serves another master, would you be pleased with such behaviour?

Well, I'm not sure that we have, for the reasons given above.

Well I hope that now we have esablished those deaths were not some kind of a massacre!

OK, I see your point now, although I don't know if god allows the test to take place to give others aesthetic pleasure!

Yes as to the true reason behind it all, that is something God Knows best and also remember that He is far above His creation in that He should experience feelings like we do.

I did not know this. How does this purification occur? After illness, are you in a better moral state than before? Does this simply mean that while ill you are unable to sin, perhaps because you are limited in your movements etc.?

This follows on from the concept that God is not evil. You see, to understand this properly, we need to acknowledge that life is a test and that our aim is for the hereafter. Life was never meant to be an easy ride if we are to achieve Paradise, since the road to Paradise is full of obstacles. Therefore, hardship is a form of a trial wherein we are expected to demonstrate patience and perseverance.

[2.153] O you who believe! seek assistance through patience and prayer; surely Allah is with the patient.

[2.155] And We will most certainly try you with somewhat of fear and hunger and loss of property and lives and fruits; and give good news to the patient,

And we learn from the Qur'an as well as the teachings of our Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that we are rewarded for our patience. In fact, hardships can even be perceived as a Mercy from God because it is like a means of worldy punishment for sins and we can avoid the far greater punishment of the hereafter thereby. So being purified in this life is better than in the hereafter, hence just because life becomes difficult does not immediately mean that God can't care about us or else He would not allow it to happen. No, it requires you to look at the whole picture before making conclusions.

As for how the purification occurs, well while you are sick for example, you are being forgiven sins God-Willing - it is a spiritual thing rather than a physical event. This doesn't mean you can't sin further, but simply that some sins are removed. It is up to the individual to keep sins to a minimum by controlling his actions and speech.

It looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree here, but thank you for making your position clear - I'm starting to understand it better. I'm sorry I'm so slow at getting to grips with these ideas, but I've only been blessed with a small brain (as a religious person might say), and life is for learning (as a non-religious person might say). Holding two contradictory mindsets in one mind was never going to be easy, but I'm getting there...

Hopefully we can reach an agreement by means of good discussion, God-Willing. There is no problem in you taking time to get to grips with any of these things, since I probably am not even doing a very good job of explaining very well but I hope God will help me to do so and guide you and the other non-muslims on this forum also.

Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by root

I am afraid there are too many if, but's and maybe for me.

Philosophy, rarely gains favour with me. We can just about say what we want as long as we ensure God remains the root cause.

You're trying to explain something which is inherently metaphysical, in physical terms. This is nigh on impossible. See, God may have effects, or outer physical manifestations which are visible in this world of ours, but God Himself is not visible. He is simply... present.

What I'm trying to say is, if you've got it made up in your mind that God does not exist, then there's really no way anyone can convince you otherwise. Conversely, if a believer has strong enough faith, there's no way they can be convinced that God does not exist.

So you see, the question 'does God exist' is philosophical in its very nature. If you don't like philosophy, fair enough, but you must understand this.

*sighs*

Is anyone listening to me?

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

Greetings Muezzin,

I absolutely agree with your point of view: a theist will never convince an atheist and vice versa. That is not the intention of our discussion here. We're trying to understand each other's viewpoints, not convert each other. Since joining this forum I have learned a great deal about Muslim belief, and the reasons people give to justify it. Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I shouldn't have the right to study religion and learn from religious people.

Peace

Oh.

Okay. Sorry, I'm in a weird mood today. Yup, you're right, you have as much a right as anyone else to learn about religion.

Greetings Callum!

Thankyou for your reply and I am very happy to be of help to you.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

OK, so we have different meanings for the word "innocent" at play here. I would say someone could be innocent whether they believe in god or not. Could an atheist with generally good moral standing not be considered innocent?

If we go back to the issue about the purpose of life, then a person who does not acknowledge God has not succeeded in life because God says in His Holy Book:

[51.56] And I have not created the jinn and the men except that they should serve Me.

However, God does reward a disbeliever for performing good actions, even though he has not done them with the intent to please God. But the reward is only in this life, and not the hereafter, because only a person who believes in God can get reward in the hereafter, since that is what passing the test is all about. I guess it's a bit like getting marks for what you get right in an exam even though you have ultimately failed.

I don't know very much about the Jewish tradition. Is it fair to say they rejected Islam out of envy?

[2.109] Many of the followers of the Book wish that they could turn you back into unbelievers after your faith, out of envy from themselves, (even) after the truth has become manifest to them; but pardon and forgive, so that Allah should bring about His command; surely Allah has power over all things.

In the Torah, the coming of the final Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was prophecised and they were expecting him. However, when they realised that he was not from amongst their own people but from the arabs, they did not wish to believe in him even though they knew he came with the truth. Thus envy was a key factor in their deviation. Please see the verses I posted earlier with respect to this: [2.89], [2.101] and [2.146].

There seems to be a contradiction in the two quotes from the Qur'an you have provided.

Now, it seems that the aforementioned groups are being threatened by Allah, for not believing despite the new revelations. So, does this mean that the earlier quote, 2.62, has been updated? Something seems to have changed. I must admit I'm very unclear on the position of Jews and Christians from the point of view of Islam, because of apparent contradictions like this.

You are right by saying that there is a change, because the verse [2.62] has been abrogated by verse [3.85] (I quoted a different one in my previous post when I had intended to post this one - sorry about that):

[3.85] And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.

So the first verse is referring to the Jews, Christians and Sabians of the past nations who believed in their own Prophets and Scriptures without change and died likewise, or those who were contemporaries of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who believed in Allaah and His Prophet and performed good deeds. Allaah only accepts deeds that are in accordance with His Prophet's (pbuh) religion as mentioned in verse [3.85].

So after the coming of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), no other religion except Islam will be accepted from anyone because his book (the Qur'an) abrogated all other scriptures and the Prophet (pbuh) even said that there is none among the Jews and Christians who hear about him and die without believing in the Message with which he was sent, but will be from the dwellers of the Hellfire, and this saying has been reported in an authentic narration. I hope this helps to clarify the two verses.

Everybody dies at some point, certainly, but a large number of people being killed at the same time does constitute a massacre, as far as I can see.

Well massacre means killing cruelly so if many people die at once, that does not automatically make it cruel. Many people probably die around the world every day, yet that was destined to be. Some people die in their sleep while others get killed by road accidents, but if we say God killed the latter, then what did God do to the first?

I was using "weapons of mass destruction" as a metaphor, which I still think is appropriate, because natural disasters (which are apparently in the control of god) can and do cause destruction on a massive scale. People are also undoubtedly killed by such disasters, so I think the use of that word is appropriate too.

If we consider a country sending a nuclear bomb to another country without any apparent reason, then we would probably say it was murder and the people were killed. That is because it is not the duty of people to take life, nor did the bombed country do anything to upset the other.

In the situation of a natural disaster, yes it is controlled by God but the very fact that He is God gives Him the authority to take our lives since He is the One who gave them to us in the first place. I know you don't believe in God but if you assume that there is a God and hence that means He is reponsible for death, you need to follow that assumption through and acknowledge that God also gave life. And then there are other things to consider such as people not doing their duty or being tested with hardship, which does not make it a simple case of killing.

Well, certainly not god, because Buddhists are atheists. Prayer in Buddhism does not have to be directed towards any specific personage, and although many Buddhists pray to bodhisattvas, who are students of the Buddha, these idols cannot provide any help; they are respected, but not worshipped. Prayer and meditation in Buddhism are more to do with inner contemplation on the one hand, and stilling the mind on the other.

I did not know that Buddhists were atheists, so I guess I misunderstood what you meant. However, it seems quite strange to me because 'prayer' is usually directed to a God and it is usually an act to request help of some kind, therefore if the idols cannot provide help, as you stated, then why are they being prayed to?

Yes, they may well be more frightened of hell than death, but I think that given a choice between certain death with no afterlife, and the chance to get to heaven and avoid hell, most people would find the latter option easier to deal with.

Yes that's true, although that means people understanding that they would no longer be free to do as they wish in life. So its a choice of either believing there is no God and enjoying life to its full which ends at death, or worshipping God and obeying Him throughout life in the hope to reach Paradise. I don't really see how they would follow religion only because they dislike death, because following religion is much more than that.

OK - I apologise if my comment on this point sounded a little insulting

That's ok, we all get carried away sometimes

Precisely - saying "you have limited knowledge of this subject, and therefore you cannot talk about it" is clearly a way of attempting to silence critics.

If we look at its use in specific contexts then we may understand it better – firstly, let us remember that Islam is a complete religion, and all aspects of religion and all related important issues will of course be explicable, but it may not explain everything down to the bone with regards to topics like creation of the universe or the case of the dinosaurs etc. because such things are not key factors in the implementation of Islam.

So if we were discussing an issue of religion, a person who stated that they had “limited knowledge of the subject” would simply mean just that, which does not automatically imply you can’t talk about it if the person were willing to go and find out and if it were possible to find out. I think it more a modest assertion rather than an argumentative strategy!

And if we were talking about existence of dinosaurs for example, I think there would be little to discuss in light of Islamic evidence, therefore the discussion would cease whether the phrase were used or not. If one decided not to talk about it, it wouldn't be due to the fact that there was something to hide but simply due to lack of knowledge.

We can also appreciate its use by the Prophet's (pbuh) Companions when they were asked questions pertaining to Islam by the Prophet (pbuh), because they would sometimes respond by saying 'Allaah and His Messenger know best' - this did not mean they didn't want to talk about it but that they acknowledged that the Prophet (pbuh) knew better than them and would rather receive the perfect answer from him.

I will remind you that its use in my context was not to silence you but to say I did not know for sure the reasoning behind the Tsunami and related events and that whatever the reason, God knew best about it.

I believe our knowledge of god is very limited indeed; so much so that I see no reason to believe he exists.

But in this case, we do have sufficient knowledge of God to know that He exists since He has made Himself known to mankind in various ways. He taught us many things about Himself, and our natural sense of reasoning tells us it to be true.

I'm not sure this counts as changing the subject or context, I'm merely pointing out that to use "belief" as an equivalent for "knowledge" is straightforwardly wrong. "Facts" and "beliefs" are very different, by definition. Also, you may have seen this pointed out by atheists in the past, but it's not something that is only common to atheists, it's actually a fundamental tenet of science.

I'm sorry if this is what I appear to be doing. As you know, I do not believe in god, however, for the purposes of argument I am prepared to discuss god in a hypothetical way, in an attempt to demonstrate the difficulties that such a concept leads to, the main difficulty being, in my view, the problem of evil.

I understand how you feel about belief and fact. And if we go back to the discussion of the problem of evil with the concept of God – you stated you are prepared to discuss God in a hypothetical way. This means that you want to learn what kind of a Being God is, and therefore we look at the whole picture. To simply look at death and say “God is evil”, without also looking at life and saying “God is good” is only looking at part of the picture and thus the discussion is incomplete! So I was trying to say that we should appreciate all the other things God does as well as give us death, such as provide for us and give us health etc. Of course you might not believe in this, but if you assume for the sake of argument that death is caused by God, you should equally accept that God does all the other things aswell and realise why death is given rather than only focus on how.

And what I meant by changing the subject is, if we are discussing hypothetically, there is no need to talk about fact at this stage since that is a discussion of its own.

OK, I think I'm starting to understand the test idea more clearly, but surely people can still be patient etc. without believing in god?

Yes they can be patient, but an act done for a worldly reason is not the same as one that is done for God. The former might earn you worldly gain, but the latter will earn you even better in the hereafter.

Thankyou again for all your comments,

Peace.