Foundations in debate for Muslims vs Atheists

[Tornado]

Which is fine but again this sort of evades the fuse bit. My point is theists can provide an answer to the question. Aethiests can only offer the ''well we don't know'' on this particular point.

Again, this is not to criticise the aethiestic view point (I respect all view points and am trying to understand as many as possible), rather just to show an example that where one group has an answer and one doesn't (if you are in an exam and the question asks: 4 times 4 = ?. you cannot write down: ''don't know''....well you can, but it's not answering the question)

p.s; if I have misunderstood your latter point, I apologise and will concede on that statement.
p.p.s; if my question contains a glaring falicy, then I shall concede this argument entirely. If I'm right, I'm right. If I'm wrong, atleast I'll learn something.

I love attitude. I know you say you have the answer, but you have to back your answer up. I don't have an answer because I can't back it up.

 

[Trumble]

My point is, if this question is raised then only theists are able to give an actual answer without having to critique the question.

I don't think my initial response was a critique of the question. Consider, I ask you if you own a red car or a blue car - would you be criticizing the question or merely answering it if you replied "I don't own a car"? Surely the latter?

Referring to the "who" part as begging the question was a critique, but that is a fallacy whenever it occurs. As the question itself (to all intents and purposes) assumes there is a God it is impossible for an atheist to answer it not just because they don't have an answer but because the question is such they logically can't have one. If they accept the assumption necessary to provide one, they would no longer be atheists!

 

[aamirsaab]

I love attitude. I know you say you have the answer, but you have to back your answer up. I don't have an answer because I can't back it up.

lol. I do admit to using a trump card in this argument (aka the God card) and for the reasons that will be mentioned further on in this post, I'll concede.

I don't think my initial response was a critique of the question. Consider, I ask you if you own a red car or a blue car - would you be criticizing the question or merely answering it if you replied "I don't own a car"? Surely the latter?

While I think that this is an unfair comparison to my original question, I will accept it and take heed from it. Mainly because..

Referring to the "who" part as begging the question was a critique, but that is a fallacy whenever it occurs. As the question itself (to all intents and purposes) assumes there is a God it is impossible for an atheist to answer it not just because they don't have an answer but because the question is such they logically can't have one. If they accept the assumption necessary to provide one, they would no longer be atheists!

That's what was troubling me at the end of my last post - I just wasn't completely sure if it was a fallacy or not. In which case, I concede this argument.

Thank you for the discussion, Azy, tornado and trumble.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Qatada

If Muslims, Christians, Hindu and Jews could agree on God; then we might convince our atheist friends.

If we could have greater interfaith friendship, we might convince our atheist friends

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth,

Eric

 

[Azy]

In which case, I concede this argument.

Bro, that's just cruel, I was hoping we could at least drag this out over a couple of afternoons as it's been very quiet here lately :s

Eric, it' a nice sentiment but I can't realistically see it happening in the near future.

 

[aamirsaab]

Bro, that's just cruel, I was hoping we could at least drag this out over a couple of afternoons as it's been very quiet here lately :s
..

Lol, don't worry, I have something special planned for all of you guys very soon. I don't want to spoil it and nor do I want to derail this thread for any longer. Hopefully, by the end of the week my suprise (much better than the last one I gave!) will be up - just need to iron out any creases in it.

 

[Skavau]

(Atheists don't know what caused the universe to begin, and anything they say is not based on evidence but based on personal opinions only. Because they do not know what was 'before' the universe or big bang, and they have no solid proof for their opinions.)

Atheists indeed do not know the state of affairs of existence prior to the Big Bang. It is a travesty of truth that so many Muslims and Christians alike persist in the delusion that mainstream science accepts that there was absolutely nothing prior to the formation of this universe. It is just not true. It is a long accepted axiom of science that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We have great reason to believe that indeed, something did exist prior to the Big Bang (ex nihilo, nihil fit being a key reason). It may be an answer indeed to assume that God prompted the Big Bang - but such an answer is without any evidence whatsoever.

They will say that the starting point of the debate is that there is no God, so you have to prove that there is one in order to convince them.

But this isn't true at all:

Some will even claim atheism isn't even a paradigm but the default starting position. They are obviously wrong, Agnosticism (believing in a God) is the default starting position. Atheism is negatively biased towards the existence of God whereas theism (relligion) is positively biased.

The difference is, at least the theists acknowledges that their view is a belief.

Absolute nonsense. You clearly need a quick lesson on burden of proof. It is upon the individual who makes the claim that has to back it up. It is a fundamentally irrational position to state that God exists and then demand that Atheists then disprove it. It is your duty to back up your own claims. Let me demonstrate this with a more logical assumption.

Your argument appears to be that because belief in God is a 'positive' assertion, the 'negative' assertion or "bias" must be demonstrated to be true. You have provided absolutely no reason for anyone to believe this whatsoever. It is well-known in philosophy that it is impossible to disprove a negative. You cannot disprove anything. Can you disprove the existence of Thor? No. You know there is no evidence for the existence of Thor, and therefore no reason to believe in the existence of Thor - but ultimately you cannot demonstrate that Thor does not exist. This is identical to the atheistic position - just swap 'Thor' with 'God'. So it is ultimately upon the claimant to demonstrate the validity of his or her own position.

Moreover, agnosticism does not mean "believing in a God". I suggest you look up its actual definition.

If they ask who created God - tell them we take Allah as a God because He is uncreated. If he was created He would not be God, and therefore we would not take him as God. This is our belief, and it is a much more convincing belief than doubt (of the atheists) who have no answer.

Not at all. It is a belief indeed, but it is not a 'convincing belief'. There is absolutely no evidence for it. It is simply an assertion and on equal merit with claiming that Thor created the universe and is uncreated.

Because we cannot see God, it doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. 'Absence of proof is not proof of absence' - as the debate argument goes. There can be someone behind a door and although you can't see him, it isn't proof that he isn't there.

The irony of you using 'absence of proof is not proof of absence' whilst earlier committing the fallacy twice is quite amusing. The fact that there is no evidence whatsoever regarding God's existence is good reason to suspect that there is no decent reason presume that God exists.

Similarly, we see the universe around us, and how it is sustained and controlled for so long - & we believe that this is the product of an All Powerful, Knowing and Wise Creator. This is our belief.

It might be your belief. But stating it as a belief is not a convincing argument, especially for an atheist.

Allah tests us and sends guidance to us -Will we obey Him (by doing good and abstaining from evil) without seeing Him? This is part of our test. If Allah was clearly watching us, while we watched Him - then none of us would even feel inclined to sin out of awe and fear for Him.

Okay.

So Allah tests us to see if we will obey him. That's fair enough. However, what isn't fair enough is that Allah's insistence and apparent expectation for us all to follow him. It is well known by the fact that most of the world is not Muslim, that Islam is not in fact very convincing for most people. Allah should be aware of the philosophical, scientific and ethical reasons that many people have for not being a Muslim. He should be aware that people will contest the claims presented in Islam and should be aware that many people will take intellectual opposition to Islam.

First of all, what is worship? Worship is to do an act which Allah/God loves, whether its praying to Him, helping the needy, helping society become a better place, even small factors such as feeding your family and providing for them - with the intent of pleasing Allah.

Why does the intent have to be to please Allah?

a non religious person (maybe they are agnostic or w/e) asks: who lit the fuse of the big bang?
Theists can actually provide an answer to this. Whether or not this answer is correct is not the primary issue (as it can be debated forever), the mere fact that an answer is given to this particular question is - especially given that aethiests (guys/gals on the opposite end of the spectrum) are unable to give one.

In simpler terms it boils down to: option a) an answer or option b) no answer but further questions.

If the questions spark further debate and further interest into actually finding it out through the scientific method then they are infinitely more valuable than a non-answer with no evidence.

And why do you spell 'Atheists' as 'Aethiests'?

 

[Skavau]

By chance?!


Alot of Muslims get confused because alot of atheists act all confident when you ask them how the first cell 'came to life by chance', or how the planets came into the position for living things to survive 'by chance'.

You would probably say 'it couldnt have been controlled by chance, just look how everythings working perfectly' right? And that it could only happen except if God willed it.


Now alot of atheists act all confident, but they're really fooling alot of people. Alot of people actually think that the atheist knows more than me so i wont even attempt to question them.


But the weakness of the atheist argument is this, they say "If the earth had been in the position to sustain life, then life could have only come into existence, and thats the reason why we're surviving today"


So in other words they're saying that if everything had happened by chance, thats the only way life could have become existent. [They will talk about the different forces (i.e. gravity etc) in the universe which caused the different planets to form, but this still isn't controlled by anyone [according to them] - so its still 'chance']


We say God created the earth for us, placed it in the right place, and made it in a way so humans and living things could survive within it.


The only difference between both arguments is that we require belief that God who has control and power was able to do it, whereas they have to believe in something which they don't have proof for either, but something which they have to put blind faith in, that it happened 'by chance.'


So if they attack you for having faith in God without seeing Him in this life, tell them that they have blind faith in 'chance' - and guess what? They can't see 'chance' either.


http://idawah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=588

Massive strawman.

Very few atheists contend that everything came to be by 'chance'.

 

[MSalman]

^look how you have contradicted yourself. How is it a strawman if some people accept it? The argument may not apply to everyone but it still hold for people who holds the "by chance" position; thus, it isn't a strawman.

 

[MSalman]

Atheists indeed do not know the state of affairs of existence prior to the Big Bang ... It may be an answer indeed to assume that God prompted the Big Bang - but such an answer is without any evidence whatsoever.

rationally speaking, there are only two possibilities: 1) we have been around forever 2) someone who have been around forever created us. From this we deduce that the Eternal is God! You may refer to this for complete argument: Where did we come from? (Does Allah (God) Exist?)

As far concerning why God, you may refer to this: Why Allah? Why not flying spaghetti monster or invisible flying pink unicorn? (Answering hard questions of Atheists)

So Allah tests us to see if we will obey him. That's fair enough. However, what isn't fair enough is that Allah's insistence and apparent expectation for us all to follow him. It is well known by the fact that most of the world is not Muslim, that Islam is not in fact very convincing for most people. Allah should be aware of the philosophical, scientific and ethical reasons that many people have for not being a Muslim. He should be aware that people will contest the claims presented in Islam and should be aware that many people will take intellectual opposition to Islam.

He told you what you need to do and it is up to you to decide. So you're blaming Him for giving you the freedom of choice and questioning? How is this inconsistent? How is it Allah Ta'ala's fault for the choices you make?

Why does the intent have to be to please Allah?

What do you suggest we should do then? Can you let the children in school do whatever they want?

And why do you spell 'Atheists' as 'Aethiests'?

It maybe a spelling mistake; are you offended?

 

[Trumble]

^look how you have contradicted yourself. How is it a strawman if some people accept it? The argument may not apply to everyone but it still hold for people who holds the "by chance" position; thus, it isn't a strawman.

You could introduce just about any vaguely coherent claim into an argument and somebody, somewhere might hold that position. Such a claim remains a strawman, to be otherwise it needs to important, if not essential, to your opponent's argument.

 

[MSalman]

You could introduce just about any vaguely coherent claim into an argument and somebody, somewhere might hold that position. Such a claim remains a strawman, to be otherwise it needs to important, if not essential, to your opponent's argument.

it is not vague since it is not like one or two individuals hold part of the argument. There are bulk of people who hold that view.

 

[Skavau]

^look how you have contradicted yourself. How is it a strawman if some people accept it? The argument may not apply to everyone but it still hold for people who holds the "by chance" position; thus, it isn't a strawman.

Again, I know of no-one that believes the universe is governed by random chance or came by random chance. It is a strawman.

rationally speaking, there are only two possibilities: 1) we have been around forever 2) someone who have been around forever created us. From this we deduce that the Eternal is God! You may refer to this for complete argument: Where did we come from? (Does Allah (God) Exist?)

Why must what is eternal be of God?

 

[Skavau]

He told you what you need to do and it is up to you to decide. So you're blaming Him for giving you the freedom of choice and questioning? How is this inconsistent? How is it Allah Ta'ala's fault for the choices you make?

I never said it was Allah's fault (well, it could be argued it is - but that is another debate altogether) - I said that Allah cannot expect everyone to be a Muslim when he has provided credence for so much opposition towards Islam. As I have said, many millions of people disbelieve in Islam for scientific, ethical and philosophical reasons. Simply reading the Qu'ran is not on its own, satisfactory for many people. The complaints that these people have (such as myself) are actual roadblocks preventing people from accepting Islam until they are rationally answered.

And, no belief is not a choice. It is a conclusion.

What do you suggest we should do then? Can you let the children in school do whatever they want?

Why for something to be worthwhile, does it have to involve pleasing Allah?

Why is it necessary for us to please Allah?

It maybe a spelling mistake; are you offended?

Not at all.

 

[MSalman]

Again, I know of no-one that believes the universe is governed by random chance or came by random chance. It is a strawman.

you said very few atheists hold that view so i was taking your words and pointing out the problem with your argument. I care less whether atheists hold that view or not.

Why must what is eternal be of God?

I explained it in the link I posted before; here it is again Why Allah?

I never said it was Allah's fault (well, it could be argued it is - but that is another debate altogether) - I said that Allah cannot expect everyone to be a Muslim when he has provided credence for so much opposition towards Islam. As I have said, many millions of people disbelieve in Islam for scientific, ethical and philosophical reasons. Simply reading the Qu'ran is not on its own, satisfactory for many people. The complaints that these people have (such as myself) are actual roadblocks preventing people from accepting Islam until they are rationally answered.

He already knows that not everyone will accept His message because He is our Creator. However, this doesn't mean it is His fault because He told us what we suppose to do and gave us the freedom to choose whatever we want. So now, you can only argue that despite the fact He knew what we are going to do, why did He give us freedom to choose whatever we want for ourselves.

And, no belief is not a choice. It is a conclusion.

we make a choice when we reach a certain conclusion. Or do you think we just randomly make choices?

Why for something to be worthwhile, does it have to involve pleasing Allah?

Why is it necessary for us to please Allah?

because it is for yourself. When kids go to school, there is a purpose behind it; it does not matter to the teachers whether they study or not. It is beneficial for the kids. Similarly, whether you obey Allah Ta'ala or not, it is for yourself.

One another way to look at this is that you were nothing before; He gave you this life so appreciate His Kindness and Mercy.

 

[Skavau]

you said very few atheists hold that view so i was taking your words and pointing out the problem with your argument. I care less whether atheists hold that view or not.

We don't.

Most Atheists accept natural law. Therefore criticism of that would be a far more prudent option than going on a journey dismantling a hypothetical and minority belief that everything happens through chance, or the universe came to be through chance.

I explained it in the link I posted before; here it is again

Let us look at this link you provided.

Why Allah? Why not flying spaghetti monster or invisible flying pink unicorns?

What we have here is difference in naming the Eternal, we call him Allah because it is one of His unique attributes-as it roughly means only one. We know Him by His attributes and we call/name Him by His attributes. You can call Him the Eternal or the Most Beneficent, the Creator etc. Allah Ta'ala tells us that all good names belong to Him. Therefore, we should call Him by something which illustrates one of His unique attributes, not some mambo jambo. Let us read following passage from the Qur'an, which clearly tells us some of His attributes.

This is mere assertion that Allah is eternal. It does not actually demonstrate that scientifically, only Allah can be eternal, or that logically only Allah can be eternal.

He already knows that not everyone will accept His message because He is our Creator. However, this doesn't mean it is His fault because He told us what we suppose to do and gave us the freedom to choose whatever we want.

Sure (Although, again - the idea that we do have free choice under the presumption of the Islamic world view is indeed a debatable assertion). I was just pointing out that people do have valid reasons for disbelieving in and/or rejecting Islam.

we make a choice when we reach a certain conclusion.

Uh, no. Our conclusions and beliefs are decided through specific experiences of natural phenomena and specific knowledge obtained. There is a reason that you are a Muslim and I am an Atheist. It is not through choice, but conclusion. You have made choices in your life, and had access to knowledge in your life that has led you to conclude that Islam is true and should be believed in. You cannot merely 'change' this belief. You cannot just 'become' a Christian because you honestly (I would assume) do not believe in Christianity. You would have to be convinced that Christianity is true before changing your belief.

The same is with me regarding Atheism. I have to be convinced that Islam is true before becoming a Muslim.

Or do you think we just randomly make choices?

Not at all.

because it is for yourself. When kids go to school, there is a purpose behind it; it does not matter to the teachers whether they study or not. It is beneficial for the kids. Similarly, whether you obey Allah Ta'ala or not, it is for yourself

Why is praising Allah beneficial?

One another way to look at this is that you were nothing before; He gave you this life so appreciate His Kindness and Mercy.

But that was Allah's choice. He knew that not all of his creation would be grateful and why does being grateful involve complete and total submission for the rest of your life?

 

[MSalman]

We don't.

Most Atheists accept natural law. Therefore criticism of that would be a far more prudent option than going on a journey dismantling a hypothetical and minority belief that everything happens through chance, or the universe came to be through chance.

fair enough; i do know that atheists do not hold this view as i have met none but as i mentioned before i was only pointing out, as you mentioned only minority holds the view, that it doesn't nullify theists' argument or make it straw man...that's all. If you people don't hold that view, then it is a new lesson for everyone.

Let us look at this link you provided.

This is mere assertion that Allah is eternal. It does not actually demonstrate that scientifically, only Allah can be eternal, or that logically only Allah can be eternal.

it answers why we call the Eternal Allah, as you asked. If you call Him by another name, that is simply a difference in naming Him; however, all good names belong to Him so we should call Him by good names. so, who do you think the eternal is? Matter?

Sure (Although, again - the idea that we do have free choice under the presumption of the Islamic world view is indeed a debatable assertion). I was just pointing out that people do have valid reasons for disbelieving in and/or rejecting Islam.

no one disagrees with you on this one but people have the tendency to say or believe as if it is His fault.

Uh, no. Our conclusions and beliefs are decided through specific experiences of natural phenomena and specific knowledge obtained. There is a reason that you are a Muslim and I am an Atheist. It is not through choice, but conclusion. You have made choices in your life, and had access to knowledge in your life that has led you to conclude that Islam is true and should be believed in. You cannot merely 'change' this belief. You cannot just 'become' a Christian because you honestly (I would assume) do not believe in Christianity. You would have to be convinced that Christianity is true before changing your belief.

I think we both hold the same view but simply different words to present it.

The same is with me regarding Atheism. I have to be convinced that Islam is true before becoming a Muslim.

what if present to you my arguments, which I believe are evident to prove the existence of Allah Ta'ala? Would you then believe in Him?

Why is praising Allah beneficial?

i can go in details but let's omit the part of this world. It is beneficial because after you die, you will be close to Him and get everything possible you can imagine.

But that was Allah's choice. He knew that not all of his creation would be grateful and why does being grateful involve complete and total submission for the rest of your life?

this is something He has given to you, it isn't yours. He created you when you were nothing without asking you (since you didn't exist before) and then He told you to obey Him if you want to remain close to Him. You have no problem with your existence and all the other bounties He has given to you but you have problem with your ultimate purpose.

 

[Skavau]

fair enough; i do know that atheists do not hold this view as i have met none but as i mentioned before i was only pointing out, as you mentioned only minority holds the view, that it doesn't nullify theists' argument or make it straw man...that's all. If you people don't hold that view, then it is a new lesson for everyone.

Okay.

it answers why we call the Eternal Allah, as you asked.

I asked: "Why must what is eternal be of God?"

What I meant is why is it only rational to consider God eternal, and not the universe?

If you call Him by another name, that is simply a difference in naming Him; however, all good names belong to Him so we should call Him by good names. so, who do you think the eternal is? Matter?

The sum total of existence. Something cannot come from nothing. There must always have been 'something'.

I think we both hold the same view but simply different words to present it.

Can you please elaborate?

what if present to you my arguments, which I believe are evident to prove the existence of Allah Ta'ala? Would you then believe in Him?

Well, what you believe to be evidence of God is not necessarily evidence to me. But inevitably, if I was convinced that your arguments for Allah were actually true and indicates that Allah does indeed exist, then I would have no choice but to believe in Islam.

Keep in mind though, that even if hypothetically you were to demonstrate the existence of Allah - moral questions from me would then surface.

i can go in details but let's omit the part of this world. It is beneficial because after you die, you will be close to Him and get everything possible you can imagine.

But why should worshiping or doing things for Allah have anything to do with that?

this is something He has given to you, it isn't yours. He created you when you were nothing without asking you (since you didn't exist before) and then He told you to obey Him if you want to remain close to Him.

But ultimately, this is all Allah's choice. He decided to do this.

You have no problem with your existence and all the other bounties He has given to you but you have problem with your ultimate purpose.

And what should my ultimate purpose be? Am I created to live or to serve?

 

[MSalman]

^I'll respond later in details but I look forward to a decent discussion between two of us and hopefully, i won't be disappointed.

 

[MSalman]

What I meant is why is it only rational to consider God eternal, and not the universe?

universe isn't eternal as it is well known. This can be proven by science and philosophy.

The sum total of existence. Something cannot come from nothing. There must always have been 'something'.

that's what everyone believes in; the only problem arises when we go into the questions who is this Eternal and its attributes etc.

Can you please elaborate?

I think I meant that we both have similar thoughts about the definition of conclusion etc. It was off-topic anyway, so let's leave it there.

But why should worshiping or doing things for Allah have anything to do with that?

lol, because He is the One who will grant you all that.

But ultimately, this is all Allah's choice. He decided to do this.

yes, no one is denying it but my point is that it shows His mercy.

Am I created to live or to serve?

both; live by pleasing Him for your own sake.

as far the other arguments, I'll write a detail response later; just came from giving a final exam so I'm going to sleep for a while, need some rest.