Allah

[Abu Ibraheem]

I believe in God, rationality, logic and science. This may seem contrdictive to many as religion is normally potrayed or understood to go against logic and understanding, and that the adherents of such faith believe in a blind leap of faith, blindly following the dictates of dogmatism. However, i am confident i can discuss my faith using rationality, logic and science and use these very tools to show evidence and reasons why i beleive in God and in Islam.

You stated you are an atheist/apostate. I find atheists to differ in their views, most believe in Darwinism and some are not quite sure in what they beleive, as long as it is not in God.

The reason why we beleive something to be true is all important to the discussion at hand. Therefore we must always be clear in our reasoning as to why we beleieve or do not beleive something. Since atheism is a modern ideology, it therefore bears the burden of proof.

One has to explain why they do not believe in God. What has made them come to that conclusion. Because if we put atheism under the spotlight of logic, we will find that atheism too must have a string of premises to make the conclusion that God does not exist.

Now, i am not trying to be a funny geezer or a thorn in the bum. I am simply stating atheism also falls under the scrutiny of science, logic and rationality.

Since i do not know whether you agree with Darwins conclusions set forth in his "Origin of Species" i will try my hardest not to make false assumptions as to what you believe.

However, it is obvious if one does not beleive in God, then one does not believe in the first man and first woman in modern form. I.e. "We are as we were", and if one does not believe in the creation of man and woman, then there is no other option but to believe that we descendend from animals.

My question here is do you believe in human rights?

Secondly, is your belief atheism a valid or invalid belief?
If i was to say to you the pyramids were actually metorites that landed upon each other to form a Pyramid, would this be rational in believing? If it is invalid according to the laws of logic, then it is irrational and unacceptable to the educated mind.

I really have a difficult time understanding atheism when i apply the laws of logic to it, for the following reason

It is impossible to prove a universal negative. When somebody asserts that there is no god, they are making a universal negative in which they cannot prove, and since one cannot prove that there is no God, it is irrational to make such a conclusion.

In order for one to prove that God does not exist, they will have to become God. what do i mean by that?
They would have to be omnipresent, being able to travel through the past and the future at the same time, knowing all things, hence being omniscient. Just because space explorers could not find a man seated on a throne in space does not logically conclude that God does not exsit.

So how do we know God exsits?

We have to question and examine the things around us, as a car will demonstrate to us that it has a maker. Even if you have nevere seen the person or machine that helped to build it you will know it has been created.

To think that a car suddenly came into being from a tornado ripping through a scrapyard throwing the peices together systematically to fashion an engine with a complex design would be therefore irrational.

Can you defend your belief using rationality, science and logic? Are you readay to debate the premises for your conclusion that God does not exist?
If you can disprove God then there is no reason to talk about who Allah is etc, as i would have been defeated. However, if you cannot prove that god doesnt exist, then in my second discourse i will attempt to demonstrate that Allah is the true universal God.

 

[barney]

A Car has a maker. If we so choose we can go to the factory and watch them being assembled. The maker is Fiat or Toyota. we can talk to the designers.


Therefore a maker is provable.
A few words in a book about something being made out of Clay or a clot of blood or gushing fluid or a single rib, dosnt prove anything. If i write on this forum that God told me Man was created from a block of cheesecake and someone reads it in 4000 years time, does that make it true?

 

[ranma1/2]

...

One has to explain why they do not believe in God. What has made them come to that conclusion. Because if we put atheism under the spotlight of logic, we will find that atheism too must have a string of premises to make the conclusion that God does not exist.

WHy? You are the one making the positive claim "god exists". Its like asking why you dont believe the IPU, thor, odin, zeus, GFSM, santa, fairies, unicorns, etc... doesnt exists.

Now many atheists see no evidence for any god "depending on the def but lets go with the general biblica god" Most religous books tend to be self contraditory and oppose scientific knowledge.

...

However, it is obvious if one does not beleive in God, then one does not believe in the first man and first woman in modern form. I.e. "We are as we were", and if one does not believe in the creation of man and woman, then there is no other option but to believe that we descendend from animals.

there are other alt such as aliens or some other sort of beggining but ill just say that most likely yes.

My question here is do you believe in human rights?

Yes, of course it depend on what you mean. I think as a society we have decided what is good and bad and what rights we have.
In general think of the golden rule.

Secondly, is your belief atheism a valid or invalid belief?

Valid. "of course thats subjective inmany ways but science seems to support it compared to most religous texts"

deleted this next bit since it was essentially......
"747 argument " and he goes over it again this time as a car in a moment..

and of course the simplest responce is
richard dawkins responce of "747 vs ultramega 747 agrument" who created god...

Not to mention as other posters have shown that the entire 747 argument is flawed. Evo is not one step but many.

It is impossible to prove a universal negative. When somebody asserts that there is no god, they are making a universal negative in which they cannot prove, and since one cannot prove that there is no God, it is irrational to make such a conclusion.

Correct, its pretty much impossible to prove anything 100% "math is the closest thing we have that can do it"
so you believe in the IPU, odin, etc..... You admit it is irrational to come to another conclusion.

....

So how do we know God exsits?

We have to question and examine the things around us, as a car will demonstrate to us that it has a maker. "once again the 747 argument"...

Can you defend your belief using rationality, science and logic? Are you ready to debate the premises for your conclusion that God does not exist?
If you can disprove God then there is no reason to talk about who Allah is etc, as i would have been defeated. However, if you cannot prove that god doesnt exist, then in my second discourse i will attempt to demonstrate that Allah is the true universal God.

yes we can. "glamour shots" as well as we can show anything doesnt exists.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I really have a difficult time understanding atheism when i apply the laws of logic to it, for the following reason

It is impossible to prove a universal negative. When somebody asserts that there is no god, they are making a universal negative in which they cannot prove, and since one cannot prove that there is no God, it is irrational to make such a conclusion.

You're right that it's impossible to prove atheism - it's a belief. That doesn't decrease its validity in any way.

Peace

 

[------]

Hello all,I am Amir this is my first post on these forums and I would like to know...What makes allah so good....Because I am a former musiilim and I never thought allah was very nice......So i have come to the conclusion that even IF he was existant I would reject him and utter the greatest of disrepects from my lips.....So please tell me....what makes him so good? (No i am not trying to start a debate...this is a real question)

:salamext:

Everyone on this thread has pretty much answered the question.

At the end of the day, It's a question of faith and common sense, to be honest.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

If you begin to realise his virtues, you'll know yourself what makes him good.

 

[believer]

because of the complete lack of proof that a god exist....and no.....looking at the world is not enough because there are easily natural ways to explain everything...also because of the fact that allah would send someone to hell for simply saying he doesent exist....its really dumb imho.

Nobody is forcing anyone to believe in God... I wouldn't really care much if you did or not or wouldnt. It's your own choice... and we respect your views and belief.

But, let me tell you one thing. If God doesn't exist and you believe not... what do you gain from being a non-believer? and... what if God really do exist... and you believe not.... well... hmmmmmm.

You know who the first rebel is?.... Satan... and he is not sleeping until he can get more people to complain to God like he did. Moreover, there is no more salvation for Satan... that's why he losses nothing by recruiting more people with him. All his efforts is aimed to mislead people and make them not to acknowledge God...

God is Good because He gave us Free Will... this is our chance to save ourselves... by simply making the right decision. Man is naturally weak and it is so easy for man to be lured to the worldy and materialistic or existentialistic views of Satan. anyway, one thing is guranteed... if you don't believe soon... there's a definite destination. If you believe soon... then you have the chance to take the test... because, beleiving alone is not a guarantee unless it is tested by God Himself.... and thats' definite as well.

 

[believer]

From the theistic paradigm, even disbelievers of Allah subhana wa ta'ala are slaves of him, they are just rebellious slaves. Here it is in terms of ownerships, Allah subhana wa ta'ala created us, and to him will we return no matter what we do. There is no escaping it.

As for being slaves of all other things in this world, that is not absolute slavery. Because we are only slave to anything else as far as we allow it to control our life. That is why that if you submit to Allah subhana wa ta'ala (the inescapable slavery) you have the highest degree of freedom, because you escape all other forms of escapable slaveries. If Allah wills it, we even break free of the slavery of our desires and urges (which I think is one of the goals in Buddhism to, right?).

I wish to add:

In a philosophical and logical approach to what you just said: If humanity are all slaves by nature... and if we cannot be masters... with this being given... then, it would be best to be a slave of God... than being slaves of Gods' creation... (this includes: ourselves, our ego, our id, or pride, our intellectual or spiritual prides, materialism, idols, superstars, cars, money, food, nature, health, trivialities, etc.)

Technically, the slave of God is better off than the slave of anything or anyone else. ... Well, I am glad we Muslims made the right choice for ourselves.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

But, let me tell you one thing. If God doesn't exist and you believe not... what do you gain from being a non-believer? and... what if God really do exist... and you believe not.... well... hmmmmmm.

Pascal's Wager . A very old and oft-criticised argument. For a start, it tells us nothing about what sort of god we should believe in. Also, believing in god on the basis of a similar thought-process to laying a bet on a horse doesn't seem very respectful - would god approve of that kind of belief?

Man is naturally weak and it is so easy for man to be lured to the worldy and materialistic or existentialistic views of Satan.

Just for information: the existentialist view of Satan is that he is a myth invented by humans to scare other humans. It's not clear if that's what you had in mind.

In a philosophical and logical approach to what you just said: If humanity are all slaves by nature... and if we cannot be masters... with this being given... then, it would be best to be a slave of God... than being slaves of Gods' creation... (this includes: ourselves, our ego, our id, or pride, our intellectual or spiritual prides, materialism, idols, superstars, cars, money, food, nature, health, trivialities, etc.)

I fail to see what is 'philosophical' or 'logical' about starting from an unexamined assumption and then making up your argument on that basis. No philosopher or logician would accept this.

Once again, may I ask people to be more careful when using words like 'philosophical' or 'logical'? It's possible that they don't mean what you think they mean.

Peace

 

[Woodrow]

I refuse to moderate any debates or arguments during Ramadan. this thread has become a debate between Deists and Atheists. we can continue if after Ramadan in the appropriate section.

 

[Abu Ibraheem]

It has been the natural believe of the human to believe God exists, since atheism is a new ideology, thus, according to the rules of academia which atheism claims to be founded upon, bears the burden of proof. Since you have stepped into a Muslim arena with you conclusions, then you must state your premises and evidences that led you to make such a conclusion. It is you that is here presenting your beliefs. If i had come to your doorstep and burdened you with the task of disproving my conclusions without giving you any valid evidence as to what leads me to such conclusions then you would be left in the dark and would be unable to disprove my conclusions since you would not have any foundations to build you’re counter argument upon. That is why your evidence of your beliefs is vital to the discussion here.

There is something that tells me that you are not completely an atheist as you state that “Most religious books tend to be self contradictory and oppose scientific knowledge”. I noticed how you did not say “All religious books”. Keep studying, it may serve you well. You just may arrive at the correct conclusion.

I am glad you have admitted that you believe in human rights. Since monkeys cannot sue other monkeys for assault, rape, or theft, then we have to ask where exactly did the system of laws come from? Where did this “golden rule” come from? Because it certainly did not come from Darwin’s “Origins of Species” which the theme of the message echoes that life is a fight for survival and only the fittest will win. With that view in mind, many people are raped of their resources, lead to gas chambers etc, because they are viewed to be the weaker species. So again, where does such human rights come from, because if we look closely throughout history, we find they did not evolve!

Can I also ask how you are going to refashion Dawkins poor attempt of a rebuttal to the “typical 747 argument”?

You have stated that evolution is many steps, fair enough, let us accept that premise and put it under the spotlight of investigation.
We have monkeys, apes and men, but yet where are the “transitional forms”? where are the half man, half monkey? Where are the fossil remains of such a creature? Darwin knew the absence of such evidence would be problematic to his thesis as this is stated in his Origin of Species. In fact, he dedicates a whole chapter of what would disprove his claims, and the fossil records has successfully disproved the claim to evolution. All you have is the so called first step and steps missing in between, then the last step. As a result, your argument falls to the ground.

Again, you bear the burden of proof.

 

[Trumble]

It has been the natural believe of the human to believe God exists

An interesting, if implausible, claim. Do you actually have anything (not 'proof', just evidence of some sort) that supports that hypothesis? It would be more reasonable if you expanded that belief to that in the supernatural in general, to include animism, pantheism etc, although rather than a 'belief' I think what is actually 'natural' to human nature is curiosity and need to explain the otherwise inexplicable.

since atheism is a new ideology

It is not an 'ideology' at all. Regardless, it predates monotheism, or at least the Christian/Islamic flavour of it.

thus, according to the rules of academia which atheism claims to be founded upon

'It' does no such thing. Strawman number two.

I am glad you have admitted that you believe in human rights. Since monkeys cannot sue other monkeys for assault, rape, or theft, then we have to ask where exactly did the system of laws come from? Where did this “golden rule” come from? Because it certainly did not come from Darwin’s “Origins of Species” which the theme of the message echoes that life is a fight for survival and only the fittest will win. With that view in mind, many people are raped of their resources, lead to gas chambers etc, because they are viewed to be the weaker species. So again, where does such human rights come from, because if we look closely throughout history, we find they did not evolve!

Of course they 'evolved', just as any other system of 'rights' and laws evolved. But Darwinian evolution by natural selection had nothing to do with process any more than it did deciding what the penalty for jaywalking should be. They came about, after a long struggle, because enough people realised the existence of such a system was to our mutual advantage. Humanity, overall, is better off with a system of 'human rights' than without them. Unfortunately man's inherently unpleasant nature does tend to re-emerge in some according to particular circumstances, hence exploitation and sometimes genocide of others. It really is that simple... no God or gods required.