I have been thinking about, how Atheists think this and that about our religion, and prophet, (delusional,madman, poet) you name it, and so on.
But, I have a question for Atheists.
What if, you were living at the time of prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and you saw him and listened to him, that he has received a revelation from god, would you then believe? or still confront him? (Since I've seen many Atheists saying that they didn't see it happen so they don't believe it)
I don't want to debate, i just want to discuss, because if then you'll not believe now, would you believe if you had lived at the time of the prophet Mohammed? (PBUH)
Good question,now before I go in on how we Muslims know that the Quran is from god, we need to make sure it's not written by anyone, so we have two targets.
1 - Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) 2 - The Arabs
Prophet Mohammed - First of all, he was illiterate ! he didn't know how to write, or read, so how did he come up with such a beautiful book? no one taught him poetry, and he was a Shepherd, he used to take care of Sheeps, so who could've taught him poetry? his father died when he was 6 years old, his mother died too (I think she died when he was born) so who? he didn't know anyone that he used to talk to, he just an ordinary man, although everybody trusted him, he was called (Al Ameen)
So there's no proof that the Prophet wrote it himself, which means the Arabs might did.
The Arabs - first of all, they were PAGANS. Why would Pagans write a book that clearly goes against their religion and idols? that will get them even killed! why would they endanger their life writing a book? for what purpose?
(You may think they wrote it and gave it to the prophet) The question to this is that, why did everyone hate the Prophet Mohammed ? (PBUH) call him a magician, a poet? why did NO ONE stand with him? because obviously they were pagans, no one supported monotheism, just Polytheism.
There's no proof that the Arabs, or the prophet wrote it.
I just want to reflect on one part of your post. You mention that the Quran was not written by anyone, and to justify yourself, you give as evidence that Mohammed (PBUH) was illiterate and that the Arabs were pagans at the time.
While I don't dispute that Mohammed (PBUH) was most likely illiterate and that the majority of Arabs were 'pagans' at the time, the Qur'an was clearly written down by scribes. Nobody states that God gave Mohammed (PBUH) a ready-made copy of the Qur'an. The claim is that as the Qur'an was being revealed to Mohammed (PBUH), he dictated it to scribes orally. The scribes wrote down what he had said, then Mohammed (PBUH) would have the scribes read back to him what he had dictated, and he would check for mistakes. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Here is the Wikipedia version of how the Qur'an was compiled, which seems to be in line with what I know of how it was compiled:
The Quran most likely existed in scattered written form during Muhammad's lifetime. Several sources indicate that during Muhammad's lifetime a large number of his companions had memorized the revelations. Early commentaries and Islamic historical sources support the above-mentioned understanding of the Quran's early development.
The first caliph Abu Bakr (d. 634) decided to collect the book in one volume so that it could be preserved. Zayd ibn Thabit (d. 655) was the person to collect the Quran since "he used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle". Thus, a group of scribes, most importantly Zayd, collected the verses and produced a hand-written manuscript of the complete book. The manuscript according to Zayd remained with Abu Bakr until he died. Zayd's reaction to the task and the difficulties in collecting the Quranic material from parchments, palm-leaf stalks, thin stones and from men who knew it by heart is recorded in earlier narratives. After Abu Bakr, Hafsa bint Umar, Muhammad's widow, was entrusted with the manuscript. In about 650, the third Caliph Uthman ibn Affan (d. 656) began noticing slight differences in pronunciation of the Quran as Islam expanded beyond the Arabian Peninsula into Persia, the Levant, and North Africa. In order to preserve the sanctity of the text, he ordered a committee headed by Zayd to use Abu Bakr's copy and prepare a standard copy of the Quran. Thus, within 20 years of Muhammad's death, the Quran was committed to written form. That text became the model from which copies were made and promulgated throughout the urban centers of the Muslim world, and other versions are believed to have been destroyed. The present form of the Quran text is accepted by Muslim scholars to be the original version compiled by Abu Bakr.
Last edited by fromelsewhere; 12-29-2016 at 02:14 AM.
I just want to reflect on one part of your post. You mention that the Quran was not written by anyone, and to justify yourself, you give as evidence that Mohammed (PBUH) was illiterate and that the Arabs were pagans at the time.
While I don't dispute that Mohammed (PBUH) was most likely illiterate and that the majority of Arabs were 'pagans' at the time, the Qur'an was clearly written down by scribes. Nobody states that God gave Mohammed (PBUH) a ready-made copy of the Qur'an. The claim is that as the Qur'an was being revealed to Mohammed (PBUH), he dictated it to scribes orally. The scribes wrote down what he had said, then Mohammed (PBUH) would have the scribes read back to him what he had dictated, and he would check for mistakes. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Good stuff,
I believe you have missed a rather subtle point though fromelsewhere
The words al Qur'an - literally means theRecital.
Thus, the revelation is in the first instance, to be recited audibly. And this is where the Qur'an is extant even today, in the hearts of over 10million Muslims, recited to memory word for word, letter for letter.
If all the Qur'ans in the world were to be gathered and thrown into the oceans, with no surviving copy left - the Muslims can reproduce it in book form easily.
All we have to do is get Huffaz (those who have memorised the Qur'an) from a handful of nations and ask them to recite in unison. We will find the reproduction of the book form of the Qur'an to simply be, a matter of recitation checked by the Huffaz among each other.
Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian. Quran - 15:9
And it remains the same as it was 1400+ years ago, a living word inside the hearts of the huffaz - logos, by Christian definition but more fitting, contextually speaking than applying to an human figure such as Jesus pbuh.
I have not heard of any person to have memorised an holy scripture word for word in totality, apart from the Muslims who memorise the Qur'an.
Of course, pre-Islam, there was the prophet Ezra pbuh from the children of Israel whom Muslims know as Uzair, he had memorised the Torah. And due to his memorisation of it, the Torah, which had been destroyed by the Baylonian invasion of Jerusalem and out of circulation for 70 years, was now back.
Can it happen now? Do the Children of Israel memorise their Torah? Answer is no.
Covenant is not theirs anymore, it passed to the first seed of Abraham, pbuh - through Ishmaels lineage (pbuh) down through the ages to Muhammad pbuh.
format_quote Originally Posted by fromelsewhere
Here is the Wikipedia version of how the Qur'an was compiled, which seems to be in line with what I know of how it was compiled:
The Quran most likely existed in scattered written form during Muhammad's lifetime. Several sources indicate that during Muhammad's lifetime a large number of his companions had memorized the revelations. Early commentaries and Islamic historical sources support the above-mentioned understanding of the Quran's early development.
The first caliph Abu Bakr (d. 634) decided to collect the book in one volume so that it could be preserved. Zayd ibn Thabit (d. 655) was the person to collect the Quran since "he used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle". Thus, a group of scribes, most importantly Zayd, collected the verses and produced a hand-written manuscript of the complete book. The manuscript according to Zayd remained with Abu Bakr until he died. Zayd's reaction to the task and the difficulties in collecting the Quranic material from parchments, palm-leaf stalks, thin stones and from men who knew it by heart is recorded in earlier narratives. After Abu Bakr, Hafsa bint Umar, Muhammad's widow, was entrusted with the manuscript. In about 650, the third Caliph Uthman ibn Affan (d. 656) began noticing slight differences in pronunciation of the Quran as Islam expanded beyond the Arabian Peninsula into Persia, the Levant, and North Africa. In order to preserve the sanctity of the text, he ordered a committee headed by Zayd to use Abu Bakr's copy and prepare a standard copy of the Quran. Thus, within 20 years of Muhammad's death, the Quran was committed to written form. That text became the model from which copies were made and promulgated throughout the urban centers of the Muslim world, and other versions are believed to have been destroyed. The present form of the Quran text is accepted by Muslim scholars to be the original version compiled by Abu Bakr.
Yes
This is correct, the problem with the Arabs was that some did not memorise the whole Qur'an yet would write it down - no one had given them the authority to do so - and the Abu Bakr RA was at odds with something he felt was required (the collation of the chapters to be unified in the form of a book) which the Prophet pbuh himself had not done.
With much deliberation and with discussions with the companions of the Prophet pbuh, it was decided the compilation was justified.
As you noted from the wiki, during the time of the thrid khaliph, Islam had truly reached a very large geopolitical sphere of influence, and some of the nations which were now Muslim, were not native Arabic speakers. This would become problematic for the new Muslims because a slight mispronunciation of the Qur'an could change the entire meaning of the verse. Arabic has vowel sounds which we do not make in English, and non native Arabs have to learn how to make those sounds accurately enough as to not skew the meaning of the intended verse.
Thus, the elocution and pronunciation which the Prophet Muhammad pbuh recited in, was known by the sahabi RA (companions) and they vigilantly made sure that the standardised book form of the Qur'an would be written to reflect the elocution, pronunciation and elongation of Qur'anic Arabic.
I hope this clarifies for you, the reason behind the chronology of the Qur'an's compilation into book form.
As believers in One God, we do not believe in ideas such as coincidence. Therefore we cannot attribute the first revelation given to Muhammad pbuh as a coincidence - here read this:
Surah al Alaq is the first revelation revealed to the Prophet Muhammad pbuh.
These are the opening verses:
1.Read! In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists), 2. Has created man from a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood). 3. Read!And your Lord is the Most Generous, 4. Who has taught (the writing) by the pen, 5. Has taught man that which he knew not.
It seems the Qur'an was ordained to be in the form of an holy book also, as well as a living recitation inside the hearts of men.
If I had been living in the 7th century, I would have been relatively ignorant about the natural world and its processes, as everyone was then compared to modern people. Given that, there is every chance that I could have believed in a prophet like Muhammad (pbuh).
Peace
How about present day?
Assuming we are sufficiently un-ignorant..... modern people.
Would you be convinced?
Cosmological, Logical and scientific Argument for existence of God...
· _Anything that has a beginning cannot be the cause__of its own existence.
· _A deterministic system needs a designer._
In
context of cosmology, then it becomes a necessity that there exist an
uncaused, intelligent (agency, source, entity) which caused all that
exist.
You were not responsible for your own birth nor, the smartphone you use came into existence on its own.
Today
it has been established that our universe was indeed created and did
not exist, it had a beginning, *not only that scientist tells us that it*
*came out of nothing…!!!*
But remember *nothing cannot create something… you still need something to create something out of nothing.*
Absolute nothing cannot exist because absolute nothing has no properties therefore neither can it act nor it can be acted upon.
So if absolute nothing existed nothing would exist.
So what caused, created, our universe?
Simple logical and rational reasoning suffice.
Let’s assume ‘A’ created our universe.
Now there are *Only two possibilities* for existence of ‘A’.
_If there is a third possibility let me know…_
First possibility: ‘A’ itself was created by say ‘B’ and then ‘B’ was created by ‘C’,
This is infinite regression which is *inconclusive, irrational and impossible.*
Let’s say you have 1000 dominoes lined up, to begin domino effect you need first initial push to the first domino.
Now
If you have infinite number of dominoes lined up, it means there is no
First domino and therefore there cannot be first initial push and hence
Domino effect cannot exist, _the sequence will never start._
Because if there is no first domino then the dominoes do not exist but our universe exist and it had a beginning.
*The first scenario for ‘A’ is therefore impossible.*
The second possibility for ‘A’ is the most *reasonable, rational, logical,* and theonly possibility.
‘A’
Never had a beginning, it always existed, we can further expound that
‘A’ possesses intelligence (including all the knowledge and information
Present in our universe) and
*'A' is capable of bringing things into existence out of nothing.*
By being able to create things out of nothing *'A'* is *De-linked* from the *chain of cause and effect, and is not a part of it*
*A* is not the first cause but causes the first cause in the chain of cause and effect and since it is De-linked from the chain, *it requires no cause for itself to exist* and eliminates the problem of infinite regression.*
Also
Since 'A' always existed, ithas no end and no beginning, which means it is truly infinite, unchanging, therefore it does not require the function of time for its existence *or* cause for its existence , since it has no beginning .
Moving on to second statement…
*A deterministic system requires a Designer.*
_A deterministic system cannot arise out of randomness because randomness and determinism are inimical to each other._
Actually there is no such thing as true randomness, there is no such thing as *by chance.*
What
We have is *bounded uncertainty*, for example no matter how many times
You throw a dice, throw it for a zillion times, *you will never ever get a 7.*
What we have is a *bounded uncertainty* that any number from 1 to 6 may show up.
If you plant an apple seed you don’t get randomly an orange tree (unless Monsanto is involved… :)
Even the uncertainty that exist at quantum level is a bounded uncertainty.
And randomness and uncertainty are two different things.
Scientists
Tells us that it is Higgs boson that is responsible for giving mass and
Properties to all the matter that exists in our universe.
If
True randomness existed we would be seeing all kind of different matter
Popping out into existence. In fact our universe will collapse due to
Random process taking place,
"Stephen Hawking Says 'God Particle’ (Higgs boson
Could Wipe Out the Universe" : http://goo.gl/k2LHnE
Do you think a unicorn is yet to pop out into existence?
Ask Higgs boson, and there you have a nice little unicorn.!!!
Before
A Deterministic system comes into existence, its parameters, its
Specifications, its possible states, needs to be *pre-determined.*
For
Example our humble electronic calculator which is a deterministic
System, before it can be manufactured (created) its specification needs
To be pre-determined, how many digits it can display, to what level of
Accuracy it can perform calculation and so on.
Our universe is a deterministic system and it is governed by laws of the nature which gives it a deterministic attribute. Therefore
Before our universe came into existence, it had to be pre-determined
What type of laws of nature it will have, what possible state it can
Have, its behavior and so on.
*And this can only come about if it has a Designer.*
Where does God come in here?
There are two mistakes that an atheist makes.
They club Gods of different religions under one roof and reject them lock stock and barrel.
This is like saying all bacteria’s are harmful for health, which is factually incorrect.
_A spoon by any other name is a spoon but A spoon by any other function is not a spoon_
The second logical fallacy an atheist commits is asking for empirical evidence for existence of God.
Any, god that has empirical evidence is a false god because anything that
Has empirical evidence means it obeys the law of nature and anything
That is subservient to the law of nature cannot be the creator of that
Law,
Let’s talk about God of Islam Allah (swt).
*Remember ‘A’ it is always existing?*
In the noble Quran Allah (swt) describes himself.
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.
(Chapter 112)
Allah does not have size , form or shape that can be described as we understand how things exists , because there is nothing that exists that can be compared with Allah.
So how do we know who is Allah?
_Through his attributes._
Allah (swt) has at least 99 names or attributes, some relevant one are…
Allah is also known as *‘al-Bâqî’* meaning…
The One whose existence has neither beginning nor end. The One whose existence is beyond the realm of time.
*‘A’ possesses all intellect present in our universe.*
Allah is also known as *‘al-'Alîm’* meaning…
The One who is intuitively aware of all things, even before they happen.
One from whom no knowledge is concealed. The One who is aware of the complete details of all matters.
*‘A’ is capable of bringing things into existence out of nothing.*
"Creator of the heavens and the earth from *nothingness*, He has only to say when He wills a thing: "Be", and it is.": Translation by Ahmed Ali
Verily, His command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, “Be!”– and it is!)
[Noble Quran 36:82)
Praise
be to Allah, Who created (out of nothing) the heavens and the earth,
Who made the angels, messengers with wings,- two, or three, or four
(pairs): He adds to Creation as He pleases: for Allah has power over all
things.
(Noble Quran 35:1)
*Our universe is deterministic.*
This is in compliance with Islamic view.
" Verily, all things have We created in proportion and measure.." [Al-Qur'an 54:49]
One of the article of faith in Islam is Al-Qada' and Al-Qadr, of Allah.
Both
al-Qada' and al-Qadr mean the predestination of an action or an event.
However if they are combined then al-Qadr means the predestination of an
Act or event before it occurs and al-Qada' refers to act or event after
It takes place.
As you must have realized 'A' is the only rational and logical Agency, entity, source that is capable of creating our universe
And by function 'A' fits Allah. (Remember spoon?)
_Now all you have to acknowledge is that.._
*'A' is for Allah.*
But of course...
*Let*
_there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error:_
_whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most_
_trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth_
all things._
Noble Quran-2:256
Islam is the most logical and rational religion.
_It offers rational explanation for any query you may have._
It's unlikely I would believe him. I would regard him with the same scepticism that I hold for anyone who says they are receiving information via supernatural means.
Peace
Revelation can be a perfectly valid claim, not only that it is backed by science....!
Revelation is nothing but putting information directly into memory.
And this has been validated by science.
Previously according to science, knowledge could only be acquired empirically through our senses, But
Today science itself invalidated this claim.
science tells us, it is now possible to acquire knowledge without making any effort or use of our senses.
"Feeding knowledge directly into your brain, just like in sci-fi classic The Matrix, could soon take as much effort as falling asleep"
"Like computers, human brains may be vulnerable to hackers. Technology is already allowing scientists to read people's thoughts and evenplant new ones in the brain."
"A.L.M.R. These are the signs (or verses) of the Book: that which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord is the Truth; but most men believe not."
(Al Qur'an 13:1)
How about present day?
Assuming we are sufficiently un-ignorant..... modern people.
Would you be convinced?
It's unlikely.
Cosmological, Logical and scientific Argument for existence of God...
· _Anything that has a beginning cannot be the cause__of its own existence.
· _A deterministic system needs a designer._
The obvious question remains: who designed the designer? Your God hypothesis explains very little, and in fact requires additional explanation.
Today
it has been established that our universe was indeed created and did
not exist, it had a beginning, *not only that scientist tells us that it*
*came out of nothing…!!!*
As far as we know. This position is continually open to revision upon discovering better evidence.
Do you find it at all surprising that, despite what Stephen Hawking says here, he is still a convinced atheist?
But remember *nothing cannot create something… you still need something to create something out of nothing.*
As far as we know.
The second possibility for ‘A’ is the most *reasonable, rational, logical,* and theonly possibility.
‘A’
Never had a beginning, it always existed, we can further expound that
‘A’ possesses intelligence (including all the knowledge and information
Present in our universe) and
*'A' is capable of bringing things into existence out of nothing.*
You're just inventing attributes out of thin air. It's far more reasonable to say "we don't know".
There are two mistakes that an atheist makes.
They club Gods of different religions under one roof and reject them lock stock and barrel.
This is like saying all bacteria’s are harmful for health, which is factually incorrect.
There are believed to be roughly 4,200 religions in the world. You believe 4,199 of them are false. I believe 4,200 of them are false. You see how little separates us. I have yet to see anything that convinces me that religions are anything other than man-made.
The second logical fallacy an atheist commits is asking for empirical evidence for existence of God.
Evidence of any kind would be good.
Any, god that has empirical evidence is a false god because anything that
Has empirical evidence means it obeys the law of nature and anything
That is subservient to the law of nature cannot be the creator of that
Law,
This is a circular argument. You've already assumed certain attributes of this God before attempting to demonstrate his existence, the nature of which according to you must be determined by those attributes. You are not "being logical" or anything like it; you are simply making stuff up at this point.
Islam is the most logical and rational religion.
_It offers rational explanation for any query you may have._
Muslims like to believe that Islam is the most logical and rational religion. If this were true, then academic philosophers all over the world would be predominantly Muslim. In fact, most are atheists.
Revelation can be a perfectly valid claim, not only that it is backed by science....!
Revelation is almost the precise opposite of the scientific method. It's very disingenuous of you to pretend that "science" supports your beliefs. It simply isn't true.
Revelation is nothing but putting information directly into memory.
No, revelation in the context of religion is the divine or supernatural disclosure to humans of something relating to human existence.
"Neuroscientists plant false memories in the brain"
Even if your analogy here was valid, how would you know that the revelation you've received was true? Using the fact that scientists have been able to plant false memories to support your position is very odd; surely this undermines every possible benefit to revelation concerning metaphysical matters that we have no independent way of checking?
The obvious question remains: who designed the designer? Your God hypothesis explains very little, and in fact requires additional explanation.
Peace
Obviously you haven't paid much attention to my argument.
Only things that come into existence requires a creator, anything that has no beginning requires no creator.
"By being able to create things out of nothing *'A'* is *De-linked* from the *chain of cause and effect, and is not a part of it*
*A* is not the first cause but causes the first cause in the chain of cause and effect and since it is De-linked from the chain, *it requires no cause for itself to exist* and eliminates the problem of infinite regression.*
Also
Since 'A' always existed, it has no end and no beginning, which means it is truly infinite, unchanging, therefore it does not require the function of time for its existence *or* cause for its existence , since it has no beginning ."
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,
As far as we know. This position is continually open to revision upon discovering better evidence.
It's unlikely...:)
There is no evidence that universe always existed, on the contrary there is evidence that our universe came into existence.
In fact Einstein desperately wanted a steady state universe and so he cheated.
"It was a *prejudice* of the time *that* the *universe was* constant and eternal, *forever unchanging*"
"This led Einstein to add a term to his initial equations ....called the *cosmological constant*, ...resulting in a stationary and unchanging cosmos."
"With the realization that his earlier *prejudice for an unchanging cosmos* was wrong, Einstein removed the cosmological constant from his equations"
_Today it is universally accepted that our universe did have a beginning._
Big bang theory is the only theory that has emprical evidence for it.
"we do strongly advocate it (big bang) since it fits all the existing data and there are no plausible alternatives. It's "99.9% proven", if you will, and that's generally good enough to label it factual"
Mr Stephen Hawkins the living Einstein in spite of being atheist acknowledges that....
"The motivation for believing in an eternal universe was the desire to *avoid* invoking *divine intervention* to create the universe and set it going."
_No evidence to support ever existing universe.._
"We have made tremendous progress in cosmology in the last hundred years. The General Theory of Relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe *shattered* the old picture of an *ever existing and ever lasting universe*. Instead, general relativity predicted that the *universe, and time itself, would begin* in the big bang."
But remember *nothing cannot create something… you still need something to create something out of nothing.*
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,
As far as we know.
Peace
Logic and rationality be damned....
"Absolute nothing cannot exist because absolute nothing has no properties therefore neither can it act nor it can be acted upon.
So if absolute nothing existed nothing would exist."
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
The second possibility for ‘A’ is the most *reasonable, rational, logical,* and the only possibility.
‘A’
Never had a beginning, it always existed, we can further expound that
‘A’ possesses intelligence (including all the knowledge and information
Present in our universe) and
*'A' is capable of bringing things into existence out of nothing.*
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
You're just inventing attributes out of thin air. It's far more reasonable to say "we don't know".
Nope...
These are rational and logical assertions based on axiomatic truth that "Anything that has a beginning cannot be the cause__of its own existence"
format_quote Originally Posted by ajazz
There are two mistakes that an atheist makes.
They club Gods of different religions under one roof and reject them lock stock and barrel.
This is like saying all bacteria’s are harmful for health, which is factually incorrect.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
There are believed to be roughly 4,200 religions in the world. You believe 4,199 of them are false. I believe 4,200 of them are false.
in spite of being old-timer here as IB you still have a lot to learn about Islam.
Islam does not claim it is the first and only true religion.
According to Islam...
Since the time of Adam(pbuh) ( First Homo Sapien ) till the last and final Prophet Muhammed(pbuh),
Allah (s.w.t) has sent about 124000 prophets, at different places and at different times.
All of them taught the same message that *There is only one God that needs to be worshipped and he has no partners.*
These revelations to the prophets were ment only for specific time and places,
As humanity progressed, people corrupted the original message, and the concept of God.
and so....
Prophets were sent with updated revelation with basic message remaining same ie "There is only one God that needs to be worshipped and he has no partners"
When humanity had progressed enough , The last and final prophet Mohammad was sent with the revelation , which is for all humanity and for all the time to come.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
I have yet to see anything that convinces me that religions are anything other than man-made.
Well, you haven't seen much...
Belief in God is hardwired in human brain.
"The £1.9 million project involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. *The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife,* and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind."_
The second logical fallacy an atheist commits is asking for empirical evidence for existence of God.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Evidence of any kind would be good.
This is like... reading the whole bible and asking who is this character Jesus...
format_quote Originally Posted by ajazz
Any, god that has empirical evidence is a false god because anything that
Has empirical evidence means it obeys the law of nature and anything
That is subservient to the law of nature cannot be the creator of that
Law,
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
This is a circular argument. You've already assumed certain attributes of this God before attempting to demonstrate his existence, the nature of which according to you must be determined by those attributes. You are not "being logical" or anything like it; you are simply making stuff up at this point.
Nope... no circular.
The argument is as straight as an arrow...
Everything that exist in our universe, its size, shape, form, and attribute are defined by the laws of the nature.
Anything that exist in our universe, whether god or Ginnie in a bottle cannot operate out side these laws.
Hence they cannot be the creator of our universe and anything that has empirical evidence means it exist inside our universe.
Therefore asking for empirical evidenc for God who is the creator of our universe is most illogical and irrational thing.
format_quote Originally Posted by ajazz
Islam is the most logical and rational religion.
_It offers rational explanation for any query you may have._
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Muslims like to believe that Islam is the most logical and rational religion. If this were true, then academic philosophers all over the world would be predominantly Muslim. In fact, most are atheists.
logic and rationality is not bounded by how many people believe it to be true.
previously majority of the people believed earth was flat.
so do you believe earth is flat?
Allah (swt) says..
"Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in God's plan. But most of them ignore (the truth)."
(Noble Qur'an 6:111)
format_quote Originally Posted by ajazz
Revelation can be a perfectly valid claim, not only that it is backed by science....!
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Revelation is almost the precise opposite of the scientific method. It's very disingenuous of you to pretend that "science" supports your beliefs. It simply isn't true.
Revelation is reveling information whether it is divine or otherwise.
and science tells us, today it is possible to deliver information without learning effort or use of our senses.
"Researchers claim to have developed a simulator which can feed information directly into a person’s brain and teach them new skills in a shorter amount of time, comparing it to “life imitating art”.
"They believe it could be the first steps in developing advanced software that will make Matrix-style instant learning a reality."
Even if your analogy here was valid, how would you know that the revelation you've received was true? Using the fact that scientists have been able to plant false memories to support your position is very odd; surely this undermines every possible benefit to revelation concerning metaphysical matters that we have no independent way of checking?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks