Logical proof for the existence of holy god.

[titus]

This is not rational at all. You talk as if you are a puppet in your parents' hands.

Then explain to me why the vast majority of Muslims in the world have Muslim parents, and the vast majority of Christians in the world have Christian parents?

Why is it that people born to non-Muslim parents have an almost guaranteed chance to go to Hell?

Think about it. What percentage of the worlds non-Muslim population converts to Islam during their lifetime? That percentage is extremely small, so that roughly 99% of them are doomed to eternal torment from birth, yet those born to Muslim parents are lucky enough to start off on the right path and have a much easier path to paradise.

That is irrational.

Allah is Al-Adl, The Just. He made the concept of the test so that there can be differentiation between good and evil. Ask this question to yourself. Who's the one figure who served humanity and you respect him for that? Now, can that person whom you idolise be held equal with a monster like Adolf Hitler?

I can name plenty of people that served humanity and that I respect, but according to your religion if they weren't Muslim they are still going to Hell along with Hitler. How does that reconcile with a just god, or a true differentiation between good and evil?

 

[aamirsaab]

Then explain to me why the vast majority of Muslims in the world have Muslim parents, and the vast majority of Christians in the world have Christian parents?

Why is it that people born to non-Muslim parents have an almost guaranteed chance to go to Hell?

Think about it. What percentage of the worlds non-Muslim population converts to Islam during their lifetime? That percentage is extremely small, so that roughly 99% of them are doomed to eternal torment from birth, yet those born to Muslim parents are lucky enough to start off on the right path and have a much easier path to paradise.

That is irrational.


I can name plenty of people that served humanity and that I respect, but according to your religion if they weren't Muslim they are still going to Hell along with Hitler. How does that reconcile with a just god, or a true differentiation between good and evil?

Have to interrupt you here: Nobody knows who is going to hell or heaven. Having a muslim birth certificate or family or siblings counts for squat in the eyes of God.

 

[titus]

Have to interrupt you here: Nobody knows who is going to hell or heaven. Having a muslim birth certificate or family or siblings counts for squat in the eyes of God.

So non-Muslims have just a good chance of paradise as Muslims?

 

[aamirsaab]

So non-Muslims have just a good chance of paradise as Muslims?

In the eyes of God, we are all equal. I have no more a right to paradise than you or anyone else just because I was born muslim. As such, my chances are the same as yours.

 

[Ali_008]

There are equal chances of everyone. The only ones who are doomed for sure are the Kafirs. And a Kafir is the one who rejects faith after having witnessed the signs of God.

As far as those millions of non-Muslims are concerned who don't get a chance to come close to Islam, Allah being Al-Adl (the Just) will deal justly with them.

 

[Ali_008]

It is not a case of whether an argument 'sounds' logical, but whether it IS logical. This really isn't the place for 'Argumentation 101' but logic is a formalized structure, not just whether an argument sounds good. In general terms, though, even logically structured arguments fail on BOTH sides of this debate because the other side doesn't accept even the starting assumptions the other takes for granted. These assumptions can often even be viewed as 'begging the question', that is 'proving' God exists (or doesn't) only by quietly assuming that He does (or doesn't).

I think the point has already been made that no atheist would suggest 'God went wrong'. Atheists believe it is arguments (made by human beings) that God EXISTS that are wrong, not that God is wrong!

My dear Brother, now I completely can't understand what's gonna convince that there is a God when you're even not accepting Scientific facts as posted here.

Is not even Science logical to you?

You guys put forward that the meaning of those verses would depend on how one interprets them. Well, I'd have considered that if the Qur'an had more than one interpretation(s). The Qur'an is one book, kept pure and uncorrupted from the past 14 and half centuries. Whatever interpretation there is of the Qur'an is what Prophet Muhammad :saws: passed on to his companions.

Tafseer of Quran by Opinion

Opinions based on a careful study can be considered valid as long as they do not contradict any known authentic explanations. Likewise, the application of obvious meanings of the Quran to existing situations and the formation of conclusions based on their similarities is also allowed as long as such interpretations do not clash with authentic classical explanations. However, free interpretation based on philosophical, scientific or sectarian ideas is totally forbidden. The Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) was reported to have said thrice: "Opinion-based arguments about the Quran is Kufr (disbelief)." Then he said: "What you know of it, act on it; and what you are ignorant of, refer it to one who knows." [Ahmad]

We can see from the above mentioned narration that the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) sternly warned his companions and later generations of Muslims concerning the interpretations of the Quran based on speculation and unsubstantiated opinions. This was done because the Quran is the foundation of Islaam and, as such, it had to remain pure and untampered with.

If free rein were given to any and everyone to interpret the Quran as he wished, its value would be totally destroyed and Islam itself would be undermined from its foundation. Thus, the only accepted Tafseer is that which follows the following sequence: Tafseer of the Quran by the Quran, Tafseer by the Sunnah, Tafseer by the sayings of the Sahaabah, Tafseer by language, and finally, Tafseer by opinion.

Source

 

[Uthman]

A couple of things have been mentioned in this thread regarding the relative chances of Non-Muslims entering paradise compared to Muslims. I would like to briefly clarify a few things from the mainstream/orthodox Islamic position on the issue.

- A Muslim who fulfils all of their obligations and avoids the major sins is guaranteed a place in paradise without any punishment.

- A Muslim who does not fulfil all of their obligatory duties and/or does fall into major sins might be punished for a time in Hell, but they will eventually enter paradise on account of their belief that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad saws is his messenger.

- A Non-Muslim who knows that Islam is the truth and rejects it will not enter paradise.

- A person who is not aware of Islam will be tested by Allah on the day of judgement and they will enter either paradise or Hell based on whether or not they pass the test.

This is off-topic, of course, but I felt the need to clarify this since it was mentioned. Therefore, if somebody wants to discuss this further, please do so in a separate thread.

 

[Trumble]

My dear Brother, now I completely can't understand what's gonna convince that there is a God when you're even not accepting Scientific facts as posted here.

Is not even Science logical to you?

There is an enormous difference between being prepared to accept prevailing scientific theories as 'fact' (at least until something better comes along) and accepting that Qur'anic quotes such as those you provided refer to such facts. All of those you mention have been discussed ad nauseam on these boards before, and I've no wish to go over it all again. Let's take just the first as an example, though.

The Qur'an talks about "The Big Bang Theory" and the origination of every being from water in the following verse:

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

Except that the Qur'an doesn't 'talk about' the Big Bang theory... it's pure wishful thinking. What 'heavens' and what 'earth' are being talked about? What is this 'cloving' process supposed to be referring to? You so casually say that the Qur'an "talks about the The Big Bang Theory", yet there is nothing that without the most desperate of 'interpretation' has anything to do with the Big Bang theory. By the way.. were the brackets in the Qur'an?!

Likewise the second. There is indeed a lot of water in every living thing; but every living thing was not made from water any more than it was made from clay. There is just no substance to a claim the quote has anything to do with 'modern science'. And so on, and so on.

You guys put forward that the meaning of those verses would depend on how one interprets them. Well, I'd have considered that if the Qur'an had more than one interpretation(s). The Qur'an is one book, kept pure and uncorrupted from the past 14 and half centuries. Whatever interpretation there is of the Qur'an is what Prophet Muhammad :saws: passed on to his companions.

I accept that the words of the Qur'an are unchanged. But are you seriously claiming that, since the time of the Prophet, Qur'anic scholars have understood verses to refer to the Big Bang, an expanding universe, undersea waves, atoms, the speed of light and so on and so forth? The truth is that verses have only been considered that way by some (many muslims have rather more sense) after people have trawled through the Qur'an looking for them, no doubt with the odd battered copy of Scientific American in hand. In doing so, IMVHO the real meaning of those verses is likely to be obscured, not revealed.

 

[Pygoscelis]

that God EXISTS that are wrong, not that God is wrong!

I would argue both. First, god doesn't exist, and second if the god of the bible and quran did exist, he would be a tyrant and we should stand against him.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Think about it. What percentage of the worlds non-Muslim population converts to Islam during their lifetime? That percentage is extremely small, so that roughly 99% of them are doomed to eternal torment from birth, yet those born to Muslim parents are lucky enough to start off on the right path and have a much easier path to paradise.

That is irrational.

Consider this. An all powerful being COULD simply make us all know what he wills us to know. To suggest otherwise would be limiting his power.

His doing so would not interfere with free will in regard to how we'd act on what he made us know. And the test would then be one of pure obedience and not of hide and go seek.

Assuming that he exists, that he chooses to use holy books and prophet messengers shows that he INTENDS the confusion and conflict that results from the differing interpretations thereof. This conflicts with the concept of a benevolent God.

 

[Pygoscelis]

As far as those millions of non-Muslims are concerned who don't get a chance to come close to Islam, Allah being Al-Adl (the Just) will deal justly with them.

This reminds me of a story I once heard regarding a christian missionary, but it works just as well with Islam...

A missionary brought his ministry to the native people of the north, the Inuit and he told them that they could be saved through accepting Jesus Christ as their personal saviour.

Saved from what? He then went on to describe the horrors of hell.

Curious, one of the Inuit boys asked him what happens to people who have never heard of this God being revealed to him. The minister gave the same answer you did above, that they would be spared and dealt with justly.

"So if you never told us about this God and we went on living as we have been we would be spared? But because you told us now we go to hell? WHY DID YOU TELL US, YOU HORRIBLE MAN?!"

 

[aamirsaab]

And moreover it would have to be intentional. Because books and messengers are human limitations, not godly ones. An all powerful being COULD simply make us all know what he wills us to know. That would not interfere with free will on how we'd act on it.

I disagree. I think it would interfere with free will. Additionally, I think it would lead to far more abuse. Think about it, if you and I both received divine intervention, what is to stop either one of us from abusing that and just lying to everyone: Oh God told me to slay you or God told me to kill all XYZ people and if you don't let me, you're going to hell. So one of us would become a supreme overlord and the rest would have no choice but to obey.

At least this way, it's in a book that everyone can see. There's conflict of opinion as is always the case in human beings, but the actual source material is in plain sight for all to see; we can both read the exact same source and the exact same information. If either one of us happen to abuse it by becoming the human incarnation of Skeletor, then everyone else will be able to see - so we don't fall into the above trap of supreme overlord.

Assuming that he exists, that he chooses to use holy books and prophet messengers shows that he INTENDS the confusion and conflict that results from the differing interpretations thereof. This conflicts with the concept of a benevolent God.

This is where the mistake is made. God sent down more Prophets on the basis of mercy for His creation. Each and every time we rejected or altered it, but God being truly merciful continued to send another.

If God was not benevolent, He would have stopped sending messengers a long time ago and we'd all be going to hell - yeah, that's real fair on those who were born after the teachings, huh? But, instead He sent more and each time refined the teachings/rituals (to fit the people) until they were perfected (with Islam).

 

[Uthman]

:salamext:

This is where the mistake is made. God sent down more Prophets on the basis of mercy for His creation. Each and every time we rejected or altered it, but God being truly merciful continued to send another.

Again, just to clarify from the mainstream Islamic position (in case there is any confusion):

The previous prophets were only sent to a specific nation with their message and their message was only intended for that specific nation at that specific time. Prophet Muhammad saws, on the other hand, was the final prophet and he was sent for the whole of mankind until the end of time. This is why the miracles given to the previous prophets were only observable by their people at their time (such as Jesus (pbuh) miraculously curing the blind) but Prophet Muhammad's saws greatest miracle - the Qur'an - is observable by all of mankind until the end of time.

 

[Lost&Found]

Think about it, if you and I both received divine intervention, what is to stop either one of us from abusing that and just lying to everyone.

Well, we would both truly know that it would be wrong to do such a thing because it is contrary to God's ruling, and in doing so we know we will be punished by him for eternity. I think that will stop us from abusing it.

 

[Pygoscelis]

You are still making use of messengers in your example. Could God not make us ALL know his will? There would then be no room for debate over what it was because we'd all know the truth, direct from the source.

At least this way, it's in a book that everyone can see. There's conflict of opinion as is always the case in human beings, but the actual source material is in plain sight for all to see;

God wouldn't need a book for that. He could have the exact same message in all our minds.

If God's sole goal was to have us know and obey his will then he wouldn't take chances on miscommunication. But instead he uses human language, human messengers and written texts from centuries past.

I see only two possible conclusions to draw here. Either these books and messengers were NOT from god as they claimed to be, or they were from god and these god doesn't hold us knowing and following his will as his sole (or most important) goal. The only other option would be that God isn't all powerful - and that would make him not God.

 

[aamirsaab]

Well, we would both truly know that it would be wrong to do such a thing because it is contrary to God's ruling, and in doing so we know we will be punished by him for eternity. I think that will stop us from abusing it.

Ah come one you put far too much faith in mankind There are plenty of people abusing the actual texts left, right and centre already. Only difference is we know those people ARE abusing the texts because we can all see the actual source material. We can't do that if there is no hardcopy.

 

[Lost&Found]

Ah come one you put far too much faith in mankind.

I think God does too. :statisfie

 

[aamirsaab]

You are still making use of messengers in your example. Could God not make us ALL know his will? There would then be no room for debate over what it was because we'd all know the truth, direct from the source.

Again, human beings as we are would abuse the crap out of it. And who is to argue with anyone who says something outrageous like that? Hell, very few people do that now, whilst we have the text at hand so it would be far worse a situation if it was given to us in our minds (that noone can question).

If God's sole goal was to have us know and obey his will then he wouldn't take chances on miscommunication. But instead he uses human language, human messengers and written texts from centuries past.

Well, why stop there. Why not just put us all in heaven to begin with and screw the test all together? I don't know, I'm not God. But this is the way He has chosen and that's what we gotta roll with. Using human languages and human messengers to convey the message would make logical sense - WE ARE HUMANS! Unless you'd rather have it spoken by a wild bear or T-rex...And the centuries old bit isn't a problem - we have scribes and translations of these texts into modern english (or whatever lang). That's what is meant by teachings for all of mankind.

I see only two possible conclusions to draw here. Either these books and messengers were NOT from god as they claimed to be,

How? If that was the case, why did those messengers go through all that crap - what was the reason behind their actions, because as far as I can tell, they're all dead now. Meaning, they got jack for it - no human would go through that much (some were tortured for beliefs) based on mere whims.

or they were from god and these god doesn't hold us knowing and following his will as his sole (or most important) goal

Again, how did you arrive to this possible conclusion?

 

[aamirsaab]

I think God does too. :statisfie

Not for me to say. Tho imho, I view it as being merciful. He could very well make us all die this particular instant in time. But He hasn't, so I'm honoured if the reason why is due to His faithfullness in me. And if it isn't due to that, I should be eternally grateful that He has blessed me with the life I have.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Again, human beings as we are would abuse the crap out of it. And who is to argue with anyone who says something outrageous like that?

The only reason people can "abuse the crap out of it" now is because we rely on each other to know the word of God. If God put his message directly to us all, then nobody could claim to have words from God that were not words from God because everybody would know otherwise. Nobody could be fooled.

And then the test would be completely about whether or not people obey the message rather than who figures it out.

Well, why stop there. Why not just put us all in heaven to begin with and screw the test all together?

Sounds good to me. But if he must test people... is it a test of who follows his message or a test of who figures it out? Its clearly a bit of both since many Christians and Jews and Hindus earnestly search for truth and believe they have it and then do all they can to follow what they think it is, only (in the muslim view) to get it wrong. Thats what the poster above was getting at.

Using human languages and human messengers to convey the message would make logical sense - WE ARE HUMANS!

But he isn't. He is beyond human language and all of its limits. And as he created us, he could very easily rise above these limits in the communication of his message.

How? If that was the case, why did those messengers go through all that crap - what was the reason behind their actions, because as far as I can tell, they're all dead now. Meaning, they got jack for it - no human would go through that much (some were tortured for beliefs) based on mere whims.

Some of them DIDN'T go through that much. Surely some of them even gained a lot.

But true, some of them went though horrible times and I don't doubt that these ones believed their claims. But that doesn't make them right. The leader of the Heaven's Gate cult, or Jim Jones, or David Koresh all likely believed in their spiritual claims. Should we believe them for that alone?

Again, how did you arrive to this possible conclusion?

Reread the above. I don't know how to spell it out any clearer.