[Lynx]

This is intended for anyone who believes the following: God will send a person to hell if that person does not believe in God.

1.Hell is a punishment
2.If someone is punished for not doing x when x can't performed by that person, then the executioner of that punishment is unjust.
3.Nobody can choose what to believe or we would be able to choose not to believe 1+1=2
4.We can't choose not to believe in 1+1=2
5.Therefore, no one can choose what to believe (3,4)
6.God sends people to Hell for not believing in God
7. Therefore, God does something unjust (1-6)


Any takers !

 

[Dagless]

This is intended for anyone who believes the following: God will send a person to hell if that person does not believe in God.

1.Hell is a punishment
2.If someone is punished for not doing x when x can't performed by that person, then the executioner of that punishment is unjust.
3.Nobody can choose what to believe or we would be able to choose not to believe 1+1=2
4.We can't choose not to believe in 1+1=2
5.Therefore, no one can choose what to believe (3,4)
6.God sends people to Hell for not believing in God
7. Therefore, God does something unjust (1-6)


Any takers !

The things in bold are assumptions.

 

[Lynx]

The things in bold are assumptions.

(2.) Is not actually not an assumption given that there is a verse in the Quran that says God does not create a task that a human is unable to perform. 2:286

As for (3.) and (4.) if (4.) is true then it follows from (3.) that We cannot choose to believe in something. Actually, you can also phrase 3 as follows:

3.If I can choose what I believe, then I can choose that 1+1=3 (or any not-1+1=2 equivalent).
4. I can't choose 1+1=3

(5) then follows from 3 & 4.

Are you going to argue that we can choose to believe that 1+1 does not equal 2? Go ahead.

 

[Dagless]

(2.) Is not actually not an assumption given that there is a verse in the Quran that says God does not create a task that a human is unable to perform. 2:286

As for (3.) and (4.) if (4.) is true then it follows from (3.) that We cannot choose to believe in something. Actually, you can also phrase 3 as follows:

3.If I can choose what I believe, then I can choose that 1+1=3 (or any not-1+1=2 equivalent).
4. I can't choose 1+1=3

(5) then follows from 3 & 4.

Are you going to argue that we can choose to believe that 1+1 does not equal 2? Go ahead.

Though God does not test a human beyond his capability that is not the same as saying everyone will do everything expected of them. Just because a human can follow rules, doesn't mean a human will follow rules.

1+1=2 is an absolute belief. You can't use a formula for religious belief, its more abstract than that.

If I didn't want to believe 1+1=2, I could come up with alternatives. e.g. 3 thirds are 1. 1 third is equal to 0.33. Therefore 3 thirds are 0.99. 1 is actually 0.99.

1+1=2 is actually 0.99+0.99=1.98.

There are many reasons why that is wrong but anybody could choose to believe it.

 

[Lynx]

Though God does not test a human beyond his capability that is not the same as saying everyone will do everything expected of them. Just because a human can follow rules, doesn't mean a human will follow rules.

I know this. What I said was if someone can't do x then it is just unjust to punish them (implicitly because it ain't their fault for not being able to do x).

1+1=2 is an absolute belief. You can't use a formula for religious belief, its more abstract than that.

If I didn't want to believe 1+1=2, I could come up with alternatives. e.g. 3 thirds are 1. 1 third is equal to 0.33. Therefore 3 thirds are 0.99. 1 is actually 0.99.

Coming up with alternatives does not mean you actually subscribe to that alternative. In any case, what you're presenting as an 'alternative' is not really much of an alternative. You are saying 'no the sky is not blue it's light blue'. We are talking about distinct inconsistencies: God or No God. Sky is blue or it is not blue. 1+1=2 or it doesn't.

I think you can think about this on your own without having an argument presented to you. Do you think it's possible for someone to pick beliefs? If I gave you a set of beliefs such as: The Godfather is the greatest movie of all time; Batman is the best superhero; Communism is way better than capitalism; Airplanes are the safest mode of transportation. Are you telling me that you can choose to believe those at will? No, people believe when they are convinced and getting convinced is involuntary!


EVEN if you bite the bullet and say you can BELIEVE whatever you will yourself to believe then I have to say that I am afraid I lack that special ability. So at the very least, I am exempt from Hell if I am not Muslim because it would follow that God asks me to believe in him but I can't choose to simply believe in him therefore the above argument kicks in.

 

[Dagless]

I know this. What I said was if someone can't do x then it is just unjust to punish them (implicitly because it ain't their fault for not being able to do x).

But the point is that everyone can do x.

Coming up with alternatives does not mean you actually subscribe to that alternative. In any case, what you're presenting as an 'alternative' is not really much of an alternative. You are saying 'no the sky is not blue it's light blue'. We are talking about distinct inconsistencies: God or No God. Sky is blue or it is not blue. 1+1=2 or it doesn't.

I think you can think about this on your own without having an argument presented to you. Do you think it's possible for someone to pick beliefs? If I gave you a set of beliefs such as: The Godfather is the greatest movie of all time; Batman is the best superhero; Communism is way better than capitalism; Airplanes are the safest mode of transportation. Are you telling me that you can choose to believe those at will? No, people believe when they are convinced and getting convinced is involuntary!


EVEN if you bite the bullet and say you can BELIEVE whatever you will yourself to believe then I have to say that I am afraid I lack that special ability. So at the very least, I am exempt from Hell if I am not Muslim because it would follow that God asks me to believe in him but I can't choose to simply believe in him therefore the above argument kicks in.

This is getting confusing. Nobody believes things just to believe them. Obviously that belief is based on something. Faith is not blind. You watch the Godfather, you list Batmans powers and compare them with other superheroes, you check out the statistics of various modes of travel. The same goes for religion. You read the Quran, you look at the Hadith.

The choice is made by you.

Your whole argument is based on assumptions anyway so it isn't sound. I didn't need to come up with the above argument at all, I could just have said:

1) God is all powerful.
2) Therefore everything God does is just.

 

[Skavau]

Your whole argument is based on assumptions anyway so it isn't sound. I didn't need to come up with the above argument at all, I could just have said:

1) God is all powerful.
2) Therefore everything God does is just.

#2 does not follow from #1.

Unless you contend that 'just' means the exact same thing as 'power'. Which would in an isolated way, by this logic make any petty dictator with control just.

But on a point relevant to the discussion: Do you think it is possible for you to wake up, observe that it happens to be raining outside and then sincerely conclude that perhaps it is actually sunny outside.

 

[Life_Is_Short]

God has sent many signs to remind us and help us understand the truth. He has shown us the problems that result from following the path of evil in this life and the hereafter, as He has shown us the benefits of following the path of righteousness.

So, after receiving countless messages, bounties, blessings and warnings, we still refuse to follow good advice out of our own free will, what should be the result? Would a person not have resigned his/her own fate to eternal misery, having refused to strive towards paradise? Were there no reward for good, what would encourage us to do good? Were there no punishment for evil, what would discourage us from doing evil things?

Read more: http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015856&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE#ixzz0ewmXSeBW
​

​

​

 

[Skavau]

So, after receiving countless messages, bounties, blessings and warnings, we still refuse to follow good advice out of our own free will, what should be the result?

Nothing, really.

If I tell you that you should stop smoking, is it a humane thing to say that perhaps you might deserve the cancer that happens as a result?

Would a person not have resigned his/her own fate to eternal misery, having refused to strive towards paradise?

No.

I don't 'believe' that a paradise exists. I don't 'believe' that an eternal misery exists. I cannot 'resign myself' to either. I cannot be encouraged to strive towards something I do not believe exists.

Were there no reward for good, what would encourage us to do good? Were there no punishment for evil, what would discourage us from doing evil things?

What does this have to do with the proposed consequences of disbelief? I do not 'believe' that an objective reward for good exists, nor do I believe an objective punishment for evil exists either. I certainly cannot be led to believe that simply holding incorrect ideals to be true as reason for eternal anguish.

 

[zakirs]

Nothing, really.

If I tell you that you should stop smoking, is it a humane thing to say that perhaps you might deserve the cancer that happens as a result?

Well if i said you would contract some allergy if you ate a kind of food and you ignored my warnings and had that then it would be bad ON YOUR PART to cry that i have caused you the misery.

I don't 'believe' that a paradise exists. I don't 'believe' that an eternal misery exists. I cannot 'resign myself' to either. I cannot be encouraged to strive towards something I do not believe exists

Then why do you care abt all this ? . If you say "i don't care my studying would help in my quiz ", then fine do it as you wish.But you should not complain after quiz that you got bad marks.

What does this have to do with the proposed consequences of disbelief? I do not 'believe' that an objective reward for good exists, nor do I believe an objective punishment for evil exists either. I certainly cannot be led to believe that simply holding incorrect ideals to be true as reason for eternal anguish.

If it is your belief then why do you care so much about your future.See the simple fact is two people ( one who has done a ton of good and lived in misery and one who has killed many throughout his life are not equal.So something has to equate them. that is where after life comes into picture )

 

[Alpha Dude]

Lynx, I'm having a terrible time understanding your argument. I think you've worded what you have to say really badly.

Please explain 3, 4, 5 more precisely and unconfusingly.

 

[Skavau]

Well if i said you would contract some allergy if you ate a kind of food and you ignored my warnings and had that then it would be bad ON YOUR PART to cry that i have caused you the misery.

Yes. Indeed, if you had the knowledge that eating a certain food would cause you to die and then went on to eat it - then you would be at fault. However if you did not know that you had an allergy to this food and then went on to eat it - then you are effectively, innocent of incompetence.

Then why do you care abt all this ? . If you say "i don't care my studying would help in my quiz ", then fine do it as you wish.But you should not complain after quiz that you got bad marks.

I care about this 'cos I like debating these things. Nothing major.

Moreover, your quiz analogy is defunct. To participate in a quiz is optional. The place in eternity, according to Muslims is not.

If it is your belief then why do you care so much about your future.See the simple fact is two people ( one who has done a ton of good and lived in misery and one who has killed many throughout his life are not equal.So something has to equate them. that is where after life comes into picture )

Sure

A punishment for someone who has killed is something that would perhaps be nice. A reward for someone who has done good is something that would perhaps be nice.

I cannot however, I don't think, be led to believe that there should exist a punishment for what you think.

 

[aamirsaab]

This is intended for anyone who believes the following: God will send a person to hell if that person does not believe in God.

1.Hell is a punishment
2.If someone is punished for not doing x when x can't performed by that person, then the executioner of that punishment is unjust.
3.Nobody can choose what to believe or we would be able to choose not to believe 1+1=2
4.We can't choose not to believe in 1+1=2
5.Therefore, no one can choose what to believe (3,4)
6.God sends people to Hell for not believing in God
7. Therefore, God does something unjust (1-6)


Any takers !

3 - 1+1= 2 is a fact. If you don't believe it, you either don't understand it or you're being deliberately obtuse.
4 - You can, but that specific argument is dumb. 1 + 1 = 2 makes logical sense. You do not need to be a philosopher to understand that concept.
5 - You can chose everything and anything you believe in. Chosing not to believe in 1+1=2 is because either you don't understand it or are being obtuse. In most cases it is the former.
6 - God, in this argument, would be sending the obtuse ones to Hell.
7 - So God has done no injustice. He's rewarded those who accepted 1 + 1 = 2 and punished those who were obtuse about it. Those who didn't understand were not punished.

 

[Dagless]

#2 does not follow from #1.

Unless you contend that 'just' means the exact same thing as 'power'. Which would in an isolated way, by this logic make any petty dictator with control just.

But on a point relevant to the discussion: Do you think it is possible for you to wake up, observe that it happens to be raining outside and then sincerely conclude that perhaps it is actually sunny outside.

The term all powerful means more than just dictating things. How about 1) God is perfect in every way. 2) Humans are imperfect. 3) Everything God does is the definition of just.

Yes. Indeed, if you had the knowledge that eating a certain food would cause you to die and then went on to eat it - then you would be at fault. However if you did not know that you had an allergy to this food and then went on to eat it - then you are effectively, innocent of incompetence.

How is this different from religion? You are being bombarded by religion every day on this very forum. Therefore the knowledge is certainly there. Whether its clear enough or not only God knows. As aamirsaab has already stated; if you live out in the jungle and are not aware (eg. nobody told you that you had an allergy) obviously this will be taken into account.

 

[Skavau]

3 - 1+1= 2 is a fact. If you don't believe it, you either don't understand it or you're being deliberately obtuse.

I can accept someone not believing 1+1=2 as fact as someone who does not understand it.

But you appear to have missed the point, if you understand that 1+1=2 is factual can you actually 'choose' not forgo that understanding and begin to claim that it is not?

4 - You can, but that specific argument is dumb. 1 + 1 = 2 makes logical sense. You do not need to be a philosopher to understand that concept.

How can you? See above question. If you seriously claim that one can believe anything, for any reason then you make a mockery of sincerity and understanding.

5 - You can chose everything and anything you believe in. Chosing not to believe in 1+1=2 is because either you don't understand it or are being obtuse. In most cases it is the former.

You haven't given a reasonable argument as to how belief is always a choice.

6 - God, in this argument, would be sending the obtuse ones to Hell.

I will firstly ask if you believe people who do not believe in a God are sincere and honest about their objections. I will then ask why you deem it permissable, perhaps in any circumstance to punish people for being incorrect about their understanding of the world - no matter how obtuse or inconsistent they are about it.

7 - So God has done no injustice. He's rewarded those who accepted 1 + 1 = 2 and punished those who were obtuse about it. Those who didn't understand were not punished.

You must know my question to this.

How is this just?

 

[Skavau]

The term all powerful means more than just dictating things. How about 1) God is perfect in every way. 2) Humans are imperfect. 3) Everything God does is the definition of just.

For #3, what do you mean when you say 'just'? I know now that you believe that everything God does is just but I don't know what you consider the term 'just' to mean.

If indeed, anything God does or could choose to do is 'just' then how can you claim to embody a moral world view? Any action by this logic could be taken by God and always under all circumstances be considered 'just'.

It certainly brings a new ironic twist to the overused pronouncement that "without god, all thing are possible".

How is this different from religion? You are being bombarded by religion every day on this very forum. Therefore the knowledge is certainly there. Whether its clear enough or not only God knows. As aamirsaab has already stated; if you live out in the jungle and are not aware (eg. nobody told you that you had an allergy) obviously this will be taken into account.

I am being bombarded (well, not really)... I am being made aware of more than just Islam. At the perspective of skepticism - what grounds do I have to choose Islam over any others? You may claim that Islam is the truth, but people of all other faiths make the same claim about their perspective with sometimes identical punishments for rejection of it.

 

[aamirsaab]

I can accept someone not believing 1+1=2 as fact as someone who does not understand it.

But you appear to have missed the point, if you understand that 1+1=2 is factual can you actually 'choose' not forgo that understanding and begin to claim that it is not?

I don't know what you are saying.

How can you? See above question. If you seriously claim that one can believe anything, for any reason then you make a mockery of sincerity and understanding.

Theoretically, you can chose to believe anything and everything. Practically, we go with the flow e.g peer pressure, conformity etc.

You haven't given a reasonable argument as to how belief is always a choice.

Do you accept 1+1=2?
Two outcomes:
Yes
No

By belief I am referring to acceptance.

I will firstly ask if you believe people who do not believe in a God are sincere and honest about their objections.

Some don't have the same info/life experiences I do. I.e they've only been told +1=
Others do have the full info but reject and mock it instead. I.e they've been told 1+1=2, they just won't accept it.

..I will then ask why you deem it permissable, perhaps in any circumstance to punish people for being incorrect about their understanding of the world - no matter how obtuse or inconsistent they are about it.

If I have presented to you the logistics of 1+1 = 2 and you say no it isn't (arguments akin to stick my fingers in my ears and say la la la) you are being obtuse. You plus revision equals passing your exam. If you don't accept that and then don't revise, you fail the test.

You must know my question to this.

How is this just?

There's nothing wrong with the obtuse guy's memory or brain functions, it is simply a matter of acceptance. The one who accepted 1+1=2 got the reward (or passed the test, because he revised!). The one who rejected that got a punishment (failed the test because he didn't revise) - he thought he was being clever, no he was being obtuse and failed.

 

[Dagless]

I can accept someone not believing 1+1=2 as fact as someone who does not understand it.

But you appear to have missed the point, if you understand that 1+1=2 is factual can you actually 'choose' not forgo that understanding and begin to claim that it is not?


How can you? See above question. If you seriously claim that one can believe anything, for any reason then you make a mockery of sincerity and understanding.


You haven't given a reasonable argument as to how belief is always a choice.


I will firstly ask if you believe people who do not believe in a God are sincere and honest about their objections. I will then ask why you deem it permissable, perhaps in any circumstance to punish people for being incorrect about their understanding of the world - no matter how obtuse or inconsistent they are about it.


You must know my question to this.

How is this just?

The person looks at 1+1=2, he see's the arguments for and against and then CHOOSES which he deems to be more correct. He can believe anything but has CHOSEN to believe what he thinks is more correct by looking at what makes sense to him.

You are looking at it after the choice is made and trying to confuse matters. Saying to the man AFTER he has seen that 1+1=2 is the choice which makes most sense, you ask him to choose not to believe it - the implication being that he does not have free choice if he cannot change his belief. This is incorrect because belief is based on fact.

If I flip a coin and it lands heads you would say "oh there was no chance because it landed heads". You are looking at it after the fact.

I don't know about the last question because I am not the judge, but we can change the question slightly and see if you think a similar way outside of religion. For example, we all know murder is wrong, therefore if someone commits murder they can't be thinking straight. By your logic just the fact they commited the murder removes all blame from the murderer. He was honest and sincere in the murder but its ok, he just misinterpreted some key info.

I am being bombarded (well, not really)... I am being made aware of more than just Islam. At the perspective of skepticism - what grounds do I have to choose Islam over any others? You may claim that Islam is the truth, but people of all other faiths make the same claim about their perspective with sometimes identical punishments for rejection of it.

and you say there's no choice

 

[Lynx]

Before I respond to the posts here I want to clarify what 'justice' means because the standard response theists like to make is to change meanings of words to fit their beliefs. Love is not love as we know it, justice is not justice as we know it, etc. (Echoing David Hume, if your attributes of God are so incomprehensible as to fly in the very face of any human conception of these attributes then on what basis do you even make ANY claims of God? But I digress).

I quoted a verse from the Quran:

" On no soul doth Allah Place a burden greater than it can bear. It gets every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill that it earns." 2:286.

So God has committed himself to not punishing people for things they cannot do and believing Islam is not something someone can do by choice. So if they happen to be unconvinced then God has agreed not to punish them since they are incapable of otherwise. The MAIN POINT with this verse is that we have a clear of idea of what God is Supposed to do (unless you bite the ultimate bullet and say God can lie because he is God)


Ferown:

The person looks at 1+1=2, he see's the arguments for and against and then CHOOSES which he deems to be more correct. He can believe anything but has CHOSEN to believe what he thinks is more correct by looking at what makes sense to him.

So you think that people can just choose to believe that the Sun does not exist? Convincing precludes choice. Either I am convinced and I don't admit it or I am convinced and I do admit it or I am unconvinced but I don't consciously say to myself "I will not believe this even though it appears to be true". It's impossible. You can easily test out my argument by trying to choose to believe that there is a bogeyman in your closet. Try it. If you can't choose to believe that then my argument is sound.

and you say there's no choice

No his message did not imply any choice being made. Skavu simply said people claim that their faith is true. They are convinced by it.

Theoretically, you can chose to believe anything and everything. Practically, we go with the flow e.g peer pressure, conformity etc.

So you have the ability to pick your beliefs? Wow, so if you see a really crappy movie you can choose to believe it's a good movie and start enjoying it all of a sudden? That's amazing.


Alpha Male:

I am not sure how much more accurately I can explain 3 & 4. What specifically don't you get? Maybe if you read some of the others posts here it will clarify what I am getting. Basically what I am saying is that (3) If we can choose what we believe then we would be able to believe in any absurd statement including 1+1=3. but (4) We can't believe that any absurd statement just by choosing SO it follows that We can't choose what we believe.

 

[aamirsaab]

...
So you have the ability to pick your beliefs? Wow, so if you see a really crappy movie you can choose to believe it's a good movie and start enjoying it all of a sudden? That's amazing.

Of course you pick your beliefs! You are capable of thought, right? Or am I talking to a robot here.

Some people love the 1st Transformers movie, yet at a script/core level it sucks.

edit: the fact that you yourself apostacised from Islam, indicates you did pick a belief!