Hello Callum,
It seems that in many places here we're starting to go in circles and I'm repeating the same points over and over again. I'm also finding that in many places the original point has been lost and we find ourselves getting frustrated about an apparent gap in communication. So, I'm going to write this post a little differently so that I can re-emphasize the main points.
The first question was: If God existed, what would be reasonable evidence of His existence? Now for you to answer this question you have to go by the same definition of 'God'. It doesn't make sense for you to say, "God's death would be reasonable evidence that He existed" because if He was God He wouldn't die in the first place! So the point here is that you cannot place such unreasonable limits on acceptable evidence for God. The evidence that you propose as reasonable should be logically consistent with the definition of God we are discussing. So to say that God should show some people miracles and not others is also inconsistent, since part of the definition of God here is that He is the Most Just, the Most fair.
At several stages in this discussion you seem to have missed or forgotten the original point. For example, you mentioned that the reason why miracles occur 'less' today is because science has progressed so less things seem miraculous. I countered that point by mentioning that the miracles that happened thousands of years agao would be just as miraculous if they happened today, such as the splitting of the sea. At which point you asked:
What evidence is there that any of these things actually happened?
It seems you have completely missed the point here! I never was trying to prove that such miraculous occurances happened. I was disproving your claim that advancement in science has resulted in a decrease in things being considered 'miraculous', because I pointed out that science still has not and cannot explain the miraculous occurances that happened in the past. So no one believed in these occurances because of lack of scientific knowledge as you have tried to claim! This is just one example where you've changed the discussion completely.
And yes, God would like His servants/slaves (creation) to believe, but He is not going to force them into belief. It is for every human being to open their heart to God and look for a deeper meaning in life beyond the purposelessness of determinism.
Which brings me to the next point. You believe that we are more than just mere bags of chemical reactions, even though from an atheist perspective, this is the only logical conclusion. Whenever I confront you on these issues, rather than admitting that yes, from what we know this is the only logical solution, you place your faith in some future discoveries that have not occured, and assert that we just don't know yet. True, we don't know yet but from where we stand now, you have advocated a position (atheism) that logically leads to determinism. Why do you choose to advocate such a theory concerning the universe when it fails to explain the universe and requires that you place so much faith in a mythical future discovery that will suddenly come out of nowhere and answer all my objections which you left unanswered. Which objections? Everyone for which you responded, "No one knows" or "It is unexplained". Imagine, what it would mean to you if you showed a theist your 'problem' of evil, and asked him to solve it, and he said, 'it remains unexplained'. You'd pounce on him and take that as evidence of his failure to provide a complete and rational explanation. Yet, you do the exact same thing when I point out my objections to your worldview.
Now about civilizations. I made the point that every major civilization in the world, no matter how isolated geographically or chronologically, has always maintained some form of belief in a single supreme deity in control abvove all others. How can you explain this if people are born atheists? If that were truly the case, then why would we have an unbroken chain of belief in God, from all around the world, dating far back in time. Where did this belief come from? You said that people are introduced to the concept of God during their development - who introduces them to this concept, and why would such people believe in the concept to begin?
You provided an article discussing 'dead' Gods. It is not a matter of gods dying, the fact is that everyone believes in the same Supreme Being, but knows Him by different names. So if one particular group that used to call Him by 'Tloquenuahauqe' dies out, that doesn't mean that 'Tloquenuahauqe had died. Moreover, the gods listed in the link are minor gods. According to the Old Testament, the word 'God' was used very freely, any rigtous person was considered a 'god'.
Next, I pointed out that Islam is the only complete rational explanation for everything in the universe. When you began to ask questions about it, and I gave you the Islamic philosophy that explained away your objections, you complained that the things being mentioned weren't empirical or testable! Again, this is like the previous example I gave where you're changing the debate completely. If I can provide an explanation to your objection to belief in God, then you're objection stands resolved. It's as simple as that. Whether my explanation is observable or empirical is totally irrrelevant. How can you claim that my explanation which resolves your objection is invalid because it's not testable?!
There is no complete and rational explanation for the universe, whatever such a thing may be. The fact that atheism can't entirely explain the universe is hardly a shortcoming - no viewpoint can, at present.
I maintain that Islam can, and I have answered your objection on the problem of evil. Now you didn't accept my explanation, and that's fine. But, you have to show me how my explanation fails. I explained why there is evil, and you just dropped the objection but still maintained that I couldn't answer it! You have to tell me why my answer is deficient.
Do you think this is because I am being stupid, or wilfully perverse? Your solutions to the problem consist of baseless assertions which would only convince a believer.
Again, you're committing the same logical fallacy that I've pointed out here twice before. You're confusing two seperate issues: on one hand there is the issue of proving Islam, and on the other hand there is the issue of determining whether Islam is successfully able to provide a complete and rational answer. Your claim was that belief in God failed when it came to the problem of evil. I answered your 'problem of evil' and instead of showing me something wrong with my answer, you rejected it because you said it wasn't testable! I'm not asking you to accept my answer, but the least you can do is accept that I have provided a rational explanation which resolves your objection.
Consider the example of the doctor and the patient. Doctor diagnoses patient with disease Q due to symtoms. Patient objects and argues that he does not really have disease Q. Patient states that the Doctor' is incapable of answering the Patient's objection to the existence of the disease. Doctor answers patient's objection. Patient maintains that the Doctor in unable to answer the patient's objection because the doctor hasn't proven to the patient the doctor's answer.
Like the patient, you're confusing providing an answer with proving that answer.
A point to note here: when I say 'atheism' and speak of it as an explanation for the universe, I'm not simply referring to the position on the non-existence of God. I'm referring to that position and all the logical conclusions and explanations that result from it. Hence, I include evolution and abiogenesis for example, in the theory of atheism, as well.
If Islam genuinely was the complete rational explanation for everything in the universe, surely every scientist would be a Muslim by now?
That's a terrible argument! You're assuming that every scientist has had Islam explained to them in a clear, logical and thorough manner! And did I not repeatedly emphasize that only the sincere seeker of truth would be guided?
Now, concerning Prophet Muhammad pbuh.
He told stories of the previous prophets that
no-one knew of? So who is to say that they were not fictional?
That's what I've been trying to ask you all along! Do you think that he was just a liar and made up all this? Or do you think he was insane and imagined up all these things?
Since I have never experienced god in any way, I am unable to explain how someone could believe god is telling them certain things. The possibilities are endless: maybe he thought those particular inheritance shares were the best way of dealing with the issue. God would only want the best, so it must have been god's will that they were instituted; maybe he made up whatever rulings seemed most reasonable to him and attributed them to god.
So then he was a liar? How is it possible that he would arbitraily make up such rules on the basis of what he thought was right, and then claim that it was not inspired by God, but revealed by God? And in light of this, how do we explain the following verses?
2:79. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allâh," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby.
39:60. And on the Day of Resurrection you will see those who lied against Allâh their faces will be black. Is there not in Hell an abode for the arrogant ones?
69:44-47. And if he (Muhammad ) had forged a false saying concerning Us (Allâh), We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might), And then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta), And none of you could withhold Us from (punishing) him.
If he was really just relying on the subjective inclinations of his heart, on what he felt were rulings of God, then how on earth would he have the audacity to claim that he was uttering the literal word of God and that if he said even the slightest thing that was not in accordance with God he would be destroyed. At such a point you must claim that he is either a liar or insane [or truthful, which is the only reasonable position here]. How on earth does someone 'imagine' an angel visitng them regularly at night and reciting the verses in arabic with them.
Consider another example. In the Qur'an, Maryam, the mother of Jesus, is praised continuously for being the best of women (eg. 66:12). There is no mention of the Prophet's first wife Khadija whom he loved more than anyone else and constantly thought about her even after his death. She was so dear to him - surely if he was relying on the subjective inclinations of his heart he would have praised her in the Qur'an, not Maryam. But he didn't.
I don't know why you expect me to be able to explain his thought processes here.
I don't know why you feel you shouldn't have to support your argument if you maintain he was deluded.
Delusion, or unconscious lying, seems to me to be the most likely explanation. Or perhaps he was consciously lying on certain points - how can I tell that he firmly believed everything in the Qur'an was from god? Maybe he put some of his own ideas or prejudices in there as well. At a distance of 1400 years, and bearing in mind that so many people have a vested interest in believing his prophetic work to be the truth in its entirety, it's very difficult for an outsider to tell.
I knew you wouldn't be able to rationally support your argument for delusion so now you've switched to liar. This is possible an even more illogical position to maintain as Muhammad called to a religion of morality and was harshest against the liars! He maintained that liars would have blackened faces on the day of resurrection (39:60) and there are thousands of ahadith I could show you condemining the liars. He once said abot what he witnessed in his vision:
"Then we came upon a man who was lying flat on his back, and another man was standing by him, holding an iron rod. With that rod, he would rip apart his cheek right up to the back of his neck and then did the same for the eye. Then he did the same for the other one. Even before he completed ripping, the other side would repair itself and then he would do it again. This would go until the day of resurrection. I asked who this man was and was told that this is a person who used to spread falsehood from the moment he stepped out of his house in the morning." (Sahih Bukhari).
In light of this, how can anyone claim that he was that person spreading falsehood from the start of every day? And why would Prophet Muhammad endure all the torture that I pointed out to you and refuse the most noble positions amongst his people - for what? For a lie?!
Clearly this is not a rational position.
I'd like to summarize the main arguments here in my post:
1. You've been unable to provide an example of reasonable evidence for God that would be consistent with the concept of God itself. Thus, how can one complain about absence of evidence when they have not decided what reasonable evidence would be? How can one compalin about an absence of evidence if they have set limits on the evidence that conflict with the concept of God (eg. "If God died, that would be reasonable evidence")
2. I have answered your problem of evil from an Islamic standpoint and explained why it is not a problem. If you feel that your objection is not resolved, you must point out to me where my explanation fails. You cannot claim that your question is unanswered simply because I haven't proven the premise of my answer. Besides, your objection against God is built on the same premise as my answer to your objection! (the premise being the existence of God). So you cannot claim my answer is simply invalid because its not testable, you have to show me specifically where my answer fails.
3. Your were unable to answer my objections to atheism, the first being that atheism necessitates determinism. You simply shrugged this objection off with a "We just don't know yet". Since you haven't provided me with an explanation with how we can be more than mere chemical bags of reactions according to atheism, I think it's fair to say that you haven't answered my objections.
On the basis of the above two arguments, I maintain that Islam is the only complete and rational explanation for the universe, while atheism fails to answer these objections.
4. Another minor point raised here is that if you believe people are born atheist (i.e. it is the natural position for human beings), then how do you explain the fact that belief in one Supreme Deity has completely dominated practically every civilization across the globe in our history. Secondly, if atheism is the disbelief in God, how can someone be born believing that God does not exist?!
5. The last point concerns Prophet Muhammad pbuh. You have still not been able to provide a ration explanation behind his mission. Why would he go through all that suffering? You simply don't have a rational explanation. Out of the three possibilties (liar, insane, or truthful) the latter is the only logical position to maintain.
I would appreciate it if we could focus on these five arguments in upcoming discussion as it will hopefully prevent us from going off on various tangents and then losing the original point which can be frustrating for both of us.
Warm regards.
Bookmarks