Logical proof for the existence of holy god.

[Pygoscelis]

Those gods have features of created beings

Unbelievable: you even admit to it being nothing more than a detour and you still expect me to indulge your evasive diversions. Last time I checked, this thread was about whether theism was true period, not any particular kind of theism. If you want to start a thread about polytheism vs. monotheism or the ancient Greco-Roman religious beliefs vs. ours or whatever, do it someplace else where it will be on topic and relevant.

See, they still miss the point even if you tame it down and use other Gods. In fact they cry foul. Using other gods isn't allowed. So what is left? We have to use imaginary things that hold some of the same properties as the gods they are claiming. We need invisible unicorns and celestial teapots. They demand it.

Harry potter is part of history too.. I am not sure of the significance to spiritual life!

And here they do the same thing, now comparing gods to harry potter.

These gods you have presented have been believed by people just as their god has and these gods have shaped society possibly MORE than their god has, yet they are still blinded from the point being made and won't accept the comparison.

 

[جوري]

And here they do the same thing, now comparing gods to harry potter.

What does this mean?

These gods you have presented have been believed by people just as their god has and these gods have shaped society possibly MORE than their god has, yet they are still blinded from the point being made and won't accept the comparison.

You haven't presented me with any gods that have shaped any culture in any memorable fashion if the best you can do is proxy you should bother to at least open the pages your pal pasted from wiki?
further, none of you have answered any questions pertaining to these alleged religions. Like how the god of harvest works with the water god and the sun god and the seed gods to give us harvest .. surely you can't create harvest if you can't get along with others gods?... and would the definition of 'god' fit a non-supreme being that has to get permission from others gods.. a little common sense might really take you the distance ..

but if you can't expend it and prefer other crap, may I suggest the next time your brain is about to flatulate that you head for the bathroom.. that is where refuse of all sorts belongs...


all the best

 

[CosmicPathos]

You assume correctly.



'Historical Buddhism' covers an immense amound of ground, very little of which is remotely relevant to this thread. There is certainly some element of truth in "they brought with them the incarnation and other baggage into Buddhist literature", as it later would be for Tibetans, Chinese and others but 'literature' and the biliefs of individuals should not be confused with 'Buddhism', at least as far as there is one 'Buddhism'. The most important references to gods, particularly in the Tibetan tradition are principally metaphorical.

There is, though, one fundamental distinction between all and any gods and other supernatural beings that appear somewhere in the Buddhist tradition and the Abrahamic God, they are subject to exactly the same laws of cause and effect as we are. For the purposes of this debate it actually makes little difference if they are 'real' or not (just as with invisible unicorns!) unless you or I can prove they do not!



Not really. It is not enjoyment of physical pleasure that leads to suffering but clinging on to that enjoyment, hence desiring it and actively seeking more of it. In the same way clinging on to anything, all things being impermanent, must ultimately cause suffering, including attachment to an illusory permanent soul, 'self' or ego.

I fail to see why eating the right amount of food should be considered a 'rebellion against nature' while, presumably, gorging to excess is not! Buddhists generally do 'have it their way', there being nothing to stop them, and few see a need for the extreme austerity you suggest. The 'Middle Way' is just that.



You 'argue' it?! Every Buddhist knows it. It is indeed a significant and obvious trap, but it is one that Buddhists have always been perfectly well aware of. Such a desire is necessary as a motivator for 'right' action on the initial path to liberation but the Buddhist recognises it for the tool or prop that it is. Eventually it, too, must be discarded; a common metaphor being a row boat you use to get to the other shore. Once there, you have no further use for it so you let it just drift away, or burn it. Not that that is as easy as it sounds!



As the above will make clear, those conclusions are unjustified.

All of which is totally off topic, of course.

Yup I argue. Last time I talked to a young monk, he was not aware that desire for nirvana can also be classified as a desire to seek permanence. maybe he was ill-experienced and had yet much to learn from the masters.

Anyways, of course it is irrelevant to this thread, but it sure as hell is relevant to your life principles? You are posting here, your essence basically, so I can talk about your life principles too, no matter how much chaos it can create in this thread? Anyways.

The concept of illusory permanence is self-contradictory. How can a Buddhist be so sure that what he is seeking is not impermanent? That is nirvana? How can a buddhist be so sure that nothingness is permanent? After all, the illusory permanence of created things came from nothing?

By the way, your Buddha is as dogmatic. Liberation/Enlightenment could ONLY be attained by following his path? Nice.

1. Life as we know it ultimately is or leads to suffering/uneasiness (dukkha) in one way or another.
2- Suffering is caused by craving or attachments to worldly pleasures of all kinds. This is often expressed as a deluded clinging to a certain sense of existence, to selfhood, or to the things or phenomena that we consider the cause of happiness or unhappiness.
3. Suffering ends when craving ends, when one is freed from desire. This is achieved by eliminating all delusion, thereby reaching a liberated state of Enlightenment (bodhi);
4. Reaching this liberated state is achieved by following the path laid out by the Buddha.

 

[IAmZamzam]

de⋅tour  [dee-toor, di-toor]
–noun
1. a roundabout or circuitous way or course, esp. one used temporarily when the main route is closed.

The thread is still about whether theism is true. You’ve demonstrated that non-theists cannot make direct comparisons to your deity, and we can't present your angle to you (as it would appear to us) to try and share an analogous perspective?

I've demonstrated no such thing.

Apparently the only thing evitable is a sincere conversation.

It doesn’t matter what deity is chosen, as long as it is possible to hold a belief about that deity it would serve as an example. The comparison isn’t for the sake of debasing or comparing Islam; it’s a matter of understanding belief itself and the claims made for god(s).

I never said anything about it being for the sake of debasing or comparing Islam.

1) Muslims believe that there is no god but Allah. (a claim which needs to be proven, but I’d let you have that one for now)

"Allah" and "God" and "Jehovah" are the same word in three different languages. It just means "the Deity in monotheism". Or literally in Arabic, "the [one] god".

2) Many theists seem to agree that the burden of proof is on the non-believer

3) I posit a list of gods (a short list of genealogy and significance), and asked theists to objectively disprove the existence of aforementioned gods.

Did I say anything about the burden of proof? No, you're the one who brought that old Burden of Proof Pushing procedure into this out of nowhere--which just so happens to be the next article I'm planning in my "Atheistic Chestnuts Refuted" series, in which I will show in various ways how the whole thing is a moot point. Jeez you people can be predictable. This jejune "you must disprove the existence of every other god but your own" tactic is among the worst of the worst. One of the most fundamental rules of reasoning is that one does not have to show how other propositions on a subject are wrong in order to show how one's own is right--unless either the other option is the only alternative or else one is still deliberately attempting a process of elimination of that sort, anyway. Another is that a diversion, regardless of further semantics involved, call it what you want--into the issue of competing theories or beliefs instead of discussing the one particular belief in question, accomplishes nothing except evasion at worst and irrelevancy at best. My own article excerpt from earlier, for instance, argued only for the existence of some higher designing power. If we can get through that, then we'll talk about particular characteristics or identity issues involved. I have more excerpts to give regarding that too.

Fair enough? Or does one necessarily need to evoke circular logic to defend revealed truths? I guess so...

What circular logic??? Someone said that they've never read a holy book which claims to be from God, I corrected them that the Koran made that claim. Where did I say that this claim was proof of itself? Huh?

Sorry. The Koran is a book. A book only has markings interpreted as words and phrases. You would be the one claiming they have any significance to yourself or others. The book is simply a medium of communication, and if you choose to believe the message was sent by god that’s your prerogative. Yes, I’ve read it. The Koran by and large assumes god exists, it is a book written for believers and doesn’t spend much time trying to convince anyone of the truth.

First you say that the words and phrases have no inherent significance except what you give to them, then you immediately turn around in the same breath and talk like they do and the ones you read into them are correct. If you really think the Koran assumes all those things and spends little time trying to convince anyone of anything, you really haven't read it thoroughly enough, or else don't remember it well enough. It alone amongst the world's scriptures frequently argues for its doctrines. I suggest you read it again.

 

[IAmZamzam]

The Atheist game is semantics and creating doubt.. it is really never about the honest approach of why most folks believe in one thing or another.. it is a mind set which they have programmed in a particular fashion as to create the air that they have expend a thought into this...then waste time further on definitions..

Ameen! Very well put.

 

[CosmicPathos]

Tetsujin said: Sorry. The Koran is a book. A book only has markings interpreted as words and phrases. You would be the one claiming they have any significance to yourself or others. The book is simply a medium of communication, and if you choose to believe the message was sent by god that’s your prerogative. Yes, I’ve read it. The Koran by and large assumes god exists, it is a book written for believers and doesn’t spend much time trying to convince anyone of the truth.


Reply: So a book can have different assumptions? So Quran largely assumes that there is God and then in the remaining small part it tries to establish that assumption by proving that god exists? What are you rambling on here about?

Maybe Koran does not have the proofs that you want. Your demands probably are unreal. I do not blame the quran for failing to meet your demands. I might as well blame you for being unrealistic.

Moreover, your assumption that Quran is written for believers is wrong. Seems you are putting pagans into the believers category.

 

[IAmZamzam]

See, they still miss the point even if you tame it down and use other Gods. In fact they cry foul. Using other gods isn't allowed. So what is left? We have to use imaginary things that hold some of the same properties as the gods they are claiming. We need invisible unicorns and celestial teapots. They demand it.

You presume in your condescension that we're missing the point. If have so much trouble finding a way to form an analogy which isn't as insulting and condescending as the use of universally disbelieved in pagan deities or magic teapots (and I have no difficulty in believing you have that much trouble not being so insulting and condescending; I've seen it in other spokespeople for atheism a million times before, and in your own behavior a jillion times in this thread), then do what most people would have thought to do long ago and drop the analogy altogether. Try just stating the point literally and categorically if you're so certain we don't get it just because we haven't repeated its meaning back to you due to being preoccupied with our offense at your degrading presentation of it.

 

[Trumble]

Yup I argue. Last time I talked to a young monk, he was not aware that desire for nirvana can also be classified as a desire to seek permanence. maybe he was ill-experienced and had yet much to learn from the masters.

I'm not surprised he was not aware of that, it being nonsense, but who, exactly, is supposed to have claimed it? It certainly wasn't me.

The concept of illusory permanence is self-contradictory.

Why?

How can a Buddhist be so sure that what he is seeking is not impermanent?

Because extinction, by definition, is permanent.

By the way, your Buddha is as dogmatic. Liberation/Enlightenment could ONLY be attained by following his path? Nice.

.

Each Buddhist sutra traditionally begins with the phrase "Thus have I heard". Perhaps you are suggesting they should all conclude with the phrase.. maybe in 'small print'.. "other ways to Liberation and Enlightenment are available"?

The Buddha taught what he knew by experience worked. As there is certainly an element of faith in accepting those teachings, Buddhists would not find it unreasonable to assume that in so knowing the Buddha would also know if there were any alternatives.. who knows, maybe some that don't involve all that nasty 'rebellion against nature'? As he never mentioned them, we assume there are not... therefore it would hardly be 'nice' to suggest there are. There is no obligation for anyone to follow the Buddhist path; those who find it unpalatable or simply don't believe it makes sense can choose any alternative path they like.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Wa7abiScientist, you have a good point about the "if everything is impermanent then the impermanence thing is permanent" paradox, but all the same this is off topic and we'd best keep it about God's existence. I suggest you and Trumble start another thread for your discussion.

 

[CosmicPathos]

I'm not surprised he was not aware of that, it being nonsense, but who, exactly, is supposed to have claimed it? It certainly wasn't me.



Why?



Because extinction, by definition, is permanent.



Each Buddhist sutra traditionally begins with the phrase "Thus have I heard". Perhaps you are suggesting they should all conclude with the phrase.. maybe in 'small print'.. "other ways to Liberation and Enlightenment are available"?

The Buddha taught what he knew by experience worked. As there is certainly an element of faith in accepting those teachings, Buddhists would not find it unreasonable to assume that in so knowing the Buddha would also know if there were any alternatives.. who knows, maybe some that don't involve all that nasty 'rebellion against nature'? As he never mentioned them, we assume there are not... therefore it would hardly be 'nice' to suggest there are. There is no obligation for anyone to follow the Buddhist path; those who find it unpalatable or simply don't believe it makes sense can choose any alternative path they like.

"Because extinction, by definition, is permanent." That's an assumption, not a fact. What extinction are we talking about here? On scientific grounds, a human body is never extinct. It just changes form. From human body to lets say chemicals in the soil? How is that extinction? Maybe Buddha is talking about extinction of a human and not of his essence? But then that is just an incomplete truth and not The Noble Truth.

Yup if Buddhism is so open and encompassing, I would like to see that statement written on the first page of the sutras.

 

[Trumble]

Try just stating the point literally and categorically if you're so certain we don't get it just because we haven't repeated its meaning back to you due to being preoccupied with our offense at your degrading presentation of it.

Argument by analogy is a perfectly respectable technique in argumentation in it's own right, not an easy alternative to "stating the point literally and catagorically". As in this case, the point can only be made by analogy.. just as in the case of all those 'Watchmaker' arguments it can only be made by analogy.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Argument by analogy is a perfectly respectable technique in argumentation in it's own right, not an easy alternative to "stating the point literally and catagorically". As in this case, the point can only be made by analogy.. just as in the case of all those 'Watchmaker' arguments it can only be made by analogy.

If by "all those watchmaker arguments" you mean teleological arguments for God's existence then they most certainly can be made without analogy. In fact, when I presented mine on the first page or so of this thread--which everyone is still turning a blind eye to; maybe I'll have to repost it--all I did with my analogies was use them to clarify and elaborate the point, not establish it. That's what analogies are for. If you think any point under the sun can't be made except through analogy, you aren't thinking hard enough. But is it really so hard to come up with one that isn't as offensive as a magic teapot? I suppose I should be thankful that we've gone far enough in this thread without seeing any atheist use the God = Santa Claus one....

 

[Trumble]

If by "all those watchmaker arguments" you mean teleological arguments for God's existence then they most certainly can be made without analogy.

I mean the subset of teleological arguments for God's existence that, as the name clearly indicates, involve argument by analogy!

If you think any point under the sun can't be made except through analogy, you aren't thinking hard enough.

But can it be made as well? In ethics, particularly, argument by analogy can be very persuasive and particularly helpful in bringing the relevant issues to light. I still see no good reason to cease using it just because your opponent is likely to take offence if you do.

But is it really so hard to come up with one that isn't as offensive as a magic teapot? I suppose I should be thankful that we've gone far enough in this thread without seeing any atheist use the God = Santa Claus one....

A good point, but in practice it seems so. Be it magic teapots, invisible dragons, Santa Claus, or otherwise perfectly respectable Norse Gods, it seems to make little difference! Perhaps it is up to the theists to make a suggestion siutable for universal inclusion in such analogies without causing offence?

 

[IAmZamzam]

A good point, but in practice it seems so. Be it magic teapots, invisible dragons, Santa Claus, or otherwise perfectly respectable Norse Gods, it seems to make little difference! Perhaps it is up to the theists to make a suggestion siutable for universal inclusion in such analogies without causing offence?

I'm tired of repeating myself on that. If what I've said for pages now hasn't sunk in, tough.

 

[Pygoscelis]

A good point, but in practice it seems so. Be it magic teapots, invisible dragons, Santa Claus, or otherwise perfectly respectable Norse Gods, it seems to make little difference! Perhaps it is up to the theists to make a suggestion siutable for universal inclusion in such analogies without causing offence?

Perhaps Hindu Gods like Ganesh? They are still worshiped by many, and seem just as fantastic to an outside viewer as magic teapots. But I really don't believe it matters WHAT you use by analogy. It is the point itself that theists find offensive.

 

[Trumble]

It is the point itself that theists find offensive.

Exactly. Which is why I would be curious to see a suggestion from Yahya, although his last bit of petulance suggests he might be finding it "really that hard" after all!

 

[tetsujin]

Did I say anything about the burden of proof? No, you're the one who brought that old Burden of Proof Pushing procedure into this out of nowhere--which just so happens to be the next article I'm planning in my "Atheistic Chestnuts Refuted" series, in which I will show in various ways how the whole thing is a moot point. Jeez you people can be predictable.

I didn't point to you specifically, if you read the preceding posts, you will see that the "burden of proof" argument was made before my post.

This jejune "you must disprove the existence of every other god but your own" tactic is among the worst of the worst. One of the most fundamental rules of reasoning is that one does not have to show how other propositions on a subject are wrong in order to show how one's own is right--unless either the other option is the only alternative or else one is still deliberately attempting a process of elimination of that sort, anyway.

Yes, I agree, it is the worst kind of argument. It is like asking for robust evidence for the non-existence of the T-Rex or robust evidence for the non-existence of bridge trolls.

The first pillar of Islam is a sincere declaration of belief. The first part of the Kalimah e Shahada is a positive claim. When you say "I bear witness (testify) that there is no god but Allah...", the same reasoning applies. you are claiming no other gods exist, and you are claiming there is only one god. How would you invite someone to Islam without resorting to that "jejune" mode of thinking?

Another is that a diversion, regardless of further semantics involved, call it what you want--into the issue of competing theories or beliefs instead of discussing the one particular belief in question, accomplishes nothing except evasion at worst and irrelevancy at best. My own article excerpt from earlier, for instance, argued only for the existence of some higher designing power. If we can get through that, then we'll talk about particular characteristics or identity issues involved. I have more excerpts to give regarding that too.

I think you and I are on the same track, perhaps coming from opposite ends. I specifically stated that religion had nothing to do with the proposition, the existence of god is an independent claim and not affected by the form or influence of any religion, unless and until believers insist on the relationship of god and religion.

It is possible to be a theist without having religiously motivated social or economic ideologies. I realize that is hard for the pious Muslim to understand. That is why I said you can hold onto your faith for the sake of the argument, I wasn't asking anyone to think outside of their box.

What circular logic??? Someone said that they've never read a holy book which claims to be from God, I corrected them that the Koran made that claim.

I don't know who that someone is, but I said books do not make claims, people make claims. Someone must have written that book. That book is a medium for the exchange of ideas. If you preceive that message as comming from the book itself and not an author, we need to stop discussing everything else.

It's not a moot point or a semantic triviality. It's a byproduct of fundamental reasoning skills. If you wish to say that book was authored by god, then please say so, and we'll have a point to talk about because now you have made a claim. If you believe that the followers of muhammad wrote that book, then we have a point to talk about, because now you have made a claim. Books do not write themselves.

The bulletin board, the bilboard, the radio station, the television commercial, the internet, the packaging on gum... all of these are mediums to exchange ideas. You should hold their sources accountable, not the medium itself.

Where did I say that this claim was proof of itself? Huh?

Boy am I delighted to read the implication that, by your methods of reasoning, the Koran is not proof of god's existence.

At least we're on the same page.

First you say that the words and phrases have no inherent significance except what you give to them, then you immediately turn around in the same breath and talk like they do and the ones you read into them are correct.

I'm so sorry. I'll be delighted to correct myself and say. I claim that it (the Koran) is a book written for believers and doesn't spend much time trying to convince anyone of the truth.

If you really think the Koran assumes all those things and spends little time trying to convince anyone of anything, you really haven't read it thoroughly enough, or else don't remember it well enough. It alone amongst the world's scriptures frequently argues for its doctrines. I suggest you read it.

Repeating a claim, no matter how many times for poetry or symbolism, does not count as making a logical argument. In any case, that discussion is what you would call a diversion.


All the best,


Faysal

 

[tetsujin]

Reply: So a book can have different assumptions? So Quran largely assumes that there is God and then in the remaining small part it tries to establish that assumption by proving that god exists? What are you rambling on here about?

Maybe Koran does not have the proofs that you want. Your demands probably are unreal. I do not blame the quran for failing to meet your demands. I might as well blame you for being unrealistic.

I'm not blaming the Koran either, and you can blame me all you want. My demands are not of the book, they are of people like yourself. You have the chance to demonstrate that my demands are unreasonable, if that is how you feel.

Moreover, your assumption that Quran is written for believers is wrong. Seems you are putting pagans into the believers category.

I'm sorry, I cannot define the word believer for you. I took the meaning given by the book you claim to follow. It only seems that you haven't opened the good book in a long time.

Al-Baqara, the second Surah begins:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Alif. Lam. Mim.
-This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil).
-Who believe in the Unseen, and establish worship, and spend of that We have bestowed upon them;
-And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter.
-These depend on guidance from their Lord. These are the successful.
-As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not.
-Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.
-And of mankind are some who say: We believe in Allah and the Last Day, when they believe not.
-They think to beguile Allah and those who believe, and they beguile none save themselves; but they perceive not.
-In their hearts is a disease, and Allah increaseth their disease. A painful doom is theirs because they lie.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's try another translation:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Alif, Lam, Mim.
-This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;
-Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what -We have provided for them;
-And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.
-They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.
-As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
-Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).
-Of the people there are some who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day;" but they do not (really) believe.
-Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realise (it) not!
-In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease: And grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


That's the very beginning of the second chapter. The first chapter being a total of 7 verses. So it doesn't take long to get there.

All the best,


Faysal

 

[Justufy]

I will put it as simply as I can,

If there is no God like the atheists put it then ultimately there can be no right or wrong, and morality is just a construct from the chemicals in our minds and from altruistic behaviour, ultimately it does not matter, it does not matter how many children’s you’ve raped or killed, the poor are dying in the street? Who cares let them die! Every man for himself! Because it matters not. It won’t matter in the end if you lived your live like Hitler or like a saint, it won’t matter how much pain you have caused to fellow men,
they hold that the only reason why people are moral is because they are like a dogs that wont piss on the carpet because they fear punishment, we don’t need earthly punishment to be moral, even if we have no proof of heavenly punishment we believe, and that is the greatness in our faith! To believe without evidence to show true love for God!


Imagine this dialogue with death in the atheistic worldview.

When the just that comes to the end of his life dies Death will come to him and will say '' I don’t give a *** what good you have done in your life if you have done this or that, you’re no better than any random road pancake on the interstate, now get into your box and rot away, just like the only true passage of your silly book said: you are ashes and to ashes you will return!''


And shame to the atheists like trumble and tetsujin that come here in an attempt to support this vile and contemptuous worldview, shame on them for labouring to instigate doubt here and promote a
Worldview that dooms’ even themselves in this equating hopeless reality that they hold as death!


If what you believe is true because in the end it all comes back to the same thing, so why are you here?

 

[CosmicPathos]

I'm not blaming the Koran either, and you can blame me all you want. My demands are not of the book, they are of people like yourself. You have the chance to demonstrate that my demands are unreasonable, if that is how you feel.



I'm sorry, I cannot define the word believer for you. I took the meaning given by the book you claim to follow. It only seems that you haven't opened the good book in a long time.

Al-Baqara, the second Surah begins:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Alif. Lam. Mim.
-This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil).
-Who believe in the Unseen, and establish worship, and spend of that We have bestowed upon them;
-And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter.
-These depend on guidance from their Lord. These are the successful.
-As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not.
-Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.
-And of mankind are some who say: We believe in Allah and the Last Day, when they believe not.
-They think to beguile Allah and those who believe, and they beguile none save themselves; but they perceive not.
-In their hearts is a disease, and Allah increaseth their disease. A painful doom is theirs because they lie.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's try another translation:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Alif, Lam, Mim.
-This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;
-Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what -We have provided for them;
-And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.
-They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.
-As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
-Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).
-Of the people there are some who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day;" but they do not (really) believe.
-Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realise (it) not!
-In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease: And grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


That's the very beginning of the second chapter. The first chapter being a total of 7 verses. So it doesn't take long to get there.

All the best,


Faysal

Red-herring? You said that Quran is for the believers. On the contrary, Quran addresses the disbelievers and invokes them. That is precisely why many disbelievers became believers after Quran addressed their concerns. If Quran was addressing the believers, and ONLY the believers, why would disbelievers feel that their concerns have been answered? Disbelievers in the context of Quranic definition and actual history are mostly pagans, Christians, Jews and then some atheists here and there who probably argued "how can we be raised up once we are bones ..."


Tetsujin said: Repeating a claim, no matter how many times for poetry or symbolism, does not count as making a logical argument. In any case, that discussion is what you would call a diversion.

Reply: It is an assumption on your part when you say repetitions are devoid of logical arguments. You have to show how any specific Quranic argument is NOT a logical argument.