one of the biggest problems with religion.

[Ummu Sufyaan]

Okay.
This can only be describe as contending there is virtue in faith, which I do thoroughly dispute - but this is not the thread.

it very much the thread. what is the point of me trying to convince and debate with you if there is nothing to base it on-belief.
you dont understand it becuase you dont have that belief.

Lynx himself gave a fantastic example to this. What if I posted a message under your door saying that you must convert to Christianity under pain of eternal torture. What would you do? Would it be convincing to you? Keep in mind here that I am not a Muslim because I am not convinced by the claims that the Qu'ran is true. I genuinely don't believe a heaven or hell as described by the Qu'ran actually exist. I cannot change this position without first being convinced (this is why also that punishing apostates makes no sense). I can only be dishonest and pretend that I accept Islam.

you've hit the nail of the head!!! there you go belief has everything to do with it.. for me to accept or have my mind changed, there needs to be some kind of foundation to build my acceptance of Christianity on-belief. i dont know you, i dont know who you are why should i accept what you tell me? as a non-Muslim, you dont have that key to change your mind-belief which is why as you said, you cant believe in heaven and hell as described in the Quran...there needs to be some kinds of "intermediary" for you to at least try to understand this.

these discussions about the unseen are next to pointless as one who doesn't believe, doesn't have a foundation to build upon.

Now how is that fair? Are you saying it is acceptable for me to go to hell and languish in eternal torture purely for not being correct, for having the wrong information?

arent you aware now. arent we debating with you? have you not read the quran! there you go, you know now.

Here's another analogy: Let us say a blind man walks out into a busy street and gets knocked over by a car. Did he 'deserve' to suffer that because he was not aware?

it isnt in his hands to be blind so how is that relevant?

Because 'paradise' is entirely consistent with God being declared as omnibenevolent. Hell is not.

omnibenevolence isnt the best word to choose here for the reason that He dint say this "benevolence" is inclusive of all situations so the idea of punishment hasnt been ruled out.

Interesting.
That doesn't sound like a moral purpose, just one born of obedience.

that not the point here though, is it?

What teachers propose torture to their failed students? What educational establishment do you know that will torment children for their entire life if they fail or mess around in school?

its called an analogy. replace "torture" with "low grades" "not getting a good job"

Ridiculous comparison.

which you seemed to have missed the point to.

If you've ever read any of my arguments you'll know that none of it rests on desiring heaven, or expecting heaven. It is about the idea that people are 'deserving' of hell (torture) based on something that they could not, or were unable to believe.

it might come as a surprise to you, but i quoted Lynx posts, not yours. i never have claimed to read all posts here-trust me i have better things to do.

 

[Lynx]

it wouldn't be called 'belief' if we didn't apply it to the matters of the unseen, would it now eace: that the whole point of belief you are using it to rely on believing unseen things.

Allah has specified what qualifies for heaven and hell. he tells us that some Muslims may also enter hell and the only thing that will save them from abiding eternally in hell will be their belief of tawheed. he's given the criteria of hell and heaven, so you cant blame anyone but yourselves for rejecting it. why dont you question why people get paradise as paradise is the opposite of Hell: reward. people get rewarded for abiding by the law, and likewise, people get punished for going against.

it makes sense to punish people for being "godless" as the whole purpose of our creation is to worship god so what do you think the fate of someone will be if they go against this. likewise, the whole purpose of going to school is to learn so what will happen if we get bad grades? we are going to have trouble getting to the uni's we want and getting a good job. cause and effect.


and what about the people/muslims who do sincerely work and who have sincerely earned paradise. isnt is unfair to them that they enter heaven after working so hard for it, and yet someone who doesnt work for paradise gets in, free ticket. does that make sense to you?

Your entire post has a fatal flaw: you need to prove to nonbelievers that Islam is actually from God before blaming them for disobeying God. I guarantee that 99% of non muslims would convert on the spot the moment Allah comes to Earth and proclaims Islam as the true religion. Or if you found something in the Quran that without a doubt proves it was from God.

If you have not grasped your mistake let me put it a different way: you talk about godless people as deserving punishment because they willfully disobey God's law. But this is a bit of a circular argument since the nonbeliever would have to be Muslim in the first place to believe he is disobeying God's law. I guess, as a side point that I find interesting, Muslims are more sinful than atheists because they believe in Islam AND they disobey it anyway whereas an atheist disobeys God because he doesn't know he exists.

So to put simply, the objection I am raising is that it is unjust to punish someone for not believing Islam because if there is no objective reason to believe in Islam, god would essentially be punishing people for rational decisions (i.e., not believing in something that has no reasons).

 

[جوري]

Can I summarize your position as you know that Islam cannot be demonstrated objectively true and you don't care if God sends people to Hell for not believing in it?

you can subjectively summarize as you please!

all the best..

 

[CosmicPathos]

Your entire post has a fatal flaw: you need to prove to nonbelievers that Islam is actually from God before blaming them for disobeying God. I guarantee that 99% of non muslims would convert on the spot the moment Allah comes to Earth and proclaims Islam as the true religion. Or if you found something in the Quran that without a doubt proves it was from God.

If you have not grasped your mistake let me put it a different way: you talk about godless people as deserving punishment because they willfully disobey God's law. But this is a bit of a circular argument since the nonbeliever would have to be Muslim in the first place to believe he is disobeying God's law. I guess, as a side point that I find interesting, Muslims are more sinful than atheists because they believe in Islam AND they disobey it anyway whereas an atheist disobeys God because he doesn't know he exists.

So to put simply, the objection I am raising is that it is unjust to punish someone for not believing Islam because if there is no objective reason to believe in Islam, god would essentially be punishing people for rational decisions (i.e., not believing in something that has no reasons).

Wow ... where did you get that 99% from?

Firstly, there is no guarantee that even if you were to see God with your own eyes that you would believe in Him.

Secondly, if you were to see God with your own eyes and were honest and came to believe in Him, that is no belief at all. Because if you rejected God in the first place after seeing Him, you would be an idiot. Faith is just that. Believing in the UNSEEN. Now, faith is strengthened by supporting arguments. To develop faith in the unseen, there are evidences for them. Rejecting those evidences will result in punishment. The evidence of Quran is enough. You cannot claim that since many people are not impressed by the Quran then it is not an objective evidence because if it was objective, just like evidence of photoelectric effect showing the particulate nature of light, only an IDIOT would not believe in it, everyone would believe in it. Many do. Many dont. It does not make it any less objective. The rejectors have a spiritual disease and hence they reject the evidence.

Anyone with NO physical mental disease, would not reject the evidence of photoelectric effect. But that is because its a matter of physical nature. Quran is also a matter of physical nature and for that if you think it is an ordinary book and not an evidence, bring forth 3 verses like it that surpass it in literary value. Maybe explain anything that you like in those 3 values but which makes sense. maybe explain philosophical axioms in those 3 verses but at least do it?

 

[Skavau]

it very much the thread. what is the point of me trying to convince and debate with you if there is nothing to base it on-belief.
you dont understand it becuase you dont have that belief.

What, its the thread for me to criticise faith?

you've hit the nail of the head!!! there you go belief has everything to do with it.. for me to accept or have my mind changed, there needs to be some kind of foundation to build my acceptance of Christianity on-belief. i dont know you, i dont know who you are why should i accept what you tell me? as a non-Muslim, you dont have that key to change your mind-belief which is why as you said, you cant believe in heaven and hell as described in the Quran...there needs to be some kinds of "intermediary" for you to at least try to understand this.

these discussions about the unseen are next to pointless as one who doesn't believe, doesn't have a foundation to build upon.

You recognise that like you with Christianity, I have to be convinced of Islam by evidence. Excllent. I always read these in parts. Do you build upon it?

arent you aware now. arent we debating with you? have you not read the quran! there you go, you know now.

No, you don't. Not really.

That's not an answer really. I know that it is the scripture of Islam that hell exists and that people for many reasons go there. The OP of this thread is asking for muslims to morally suport it, however they interpret it.

it isnt in his hands to be blind so how is that relevant?

Muslims frequently describe the state of Non-Muslims as 'blind' in some way, and yet ascribe it as their fault for being a Non-Muslims. Surely by this logic, if we can be held responsible for thought-crime and ignorance by God - a blind person ought to be held responsible for the same by us?

omnibenevolence isnt the best word to choose here for the reason that He dint say this "benevolence" is inclusive of all situations so the idea of punishment hasnt been ruled out.

But again: the setup of a situation where people live in happiness is entirely consistent with any form of benevolence.

that not the point here though, is it?

Uh, yes it is. I fail to see how you can ascribe moral attributes to a world view with foundations in nothing more than obedience to authority.

its called an analogy. replace "torture" with "low grades" "not getting a good job"

Its called a ridiculous analogy. 'Torture' has nothing to do with 'low grades'. Not even comparable. The fact you would try is strange. I might as well say that a parent punishing her child for stealing some cookies is just the same principle as the NSDAP in Nazi Germany coming down on the gypsy population.

Just replace "genocide" with "stealing cookies". It has about as much relevance as your comparison.

Also: what schools do you know support the idea of thought-crime?

it might come as a surprise to you, but i quoted Lynx posts, not yours. i never have claimed to read all posts here-trust me i have better things to do.

It was no complaint to anyone. Just frustration at repeating myself.

I ought to save some generic response of mine in a document.

 

[Skavau]

God has 99 known attributes - you constrain yourself to just one, which you then base solely on your own interpretation.

This shouldn't matter - if all the attributes were in no contradiction.

I'd be interested to know why you think omnibenevolence would not necessitate the existence of a 'heaven' or 'paradise' like place though.

That's because your point ignores the 99 known attributes of God thus making it a fallacy.


Example of God: interest is forbidden
Example of mankind: interest is fantastic

There are significant differences here between the two. If you are unable to accept that (and apply them on a much grander scale), there can be no discussion.

This is just special pleading. Its not an argument, its just semantics. You know as well as I do that everyone is going to argue from a 'human' person because, well, we're humans. What other point of view do you propose we come from?

All you do is remind me that perhaps God means things differently than we do when we generally talk about 'justice'. Perhaps God means something totally different. Perhaps even, the attributes of God refer to something completely different than we imagine.

But then what's the point? You've argued yourself out of Islam's absolute focus on morality and/or its adherents often insistence that its precepts are intuitively rational and moral and into a vague world view of "who knows?". We know now that indeed, by your reckoning, all of our entire understanding of everything concerning morality could be completely different to that of God's - completelly nullifying any claim that God could get us to understand his way, and follow his way on moral terms.

Indeed, how do you determine anything about God if it could mean anything to you?

 

[Uthman]

Greetings Lynx,

Thanks once again for the reply.

I am more than willing to change my mind. I used to be a practicing Muslim but I am not so much anymore. I used to argue that Islam is the true religion etc. and thus I am familiar with most arguments for Islam's truth. I am not a stranger to Islam and I can say I have some knowledge on topic. My point is that I used to think the opposite of what I was arguing in my OP so I am more than willing to change my mind as I have done it before.

Fantastic.

I did get the impression that you had heard the argument for the miraculous nature of the Qur'an before. Be that as it may, did you check out the links that I gave you?

Regards

 

[aamirsaab]

....
AAMIR:


So for God, justice means punishing people with eternal hellfire for not believing in something that has no evidence to be believed in? If the definition of justice is going to be so radicallly different from our idea of justice then why not just say there is no way to understand God's mercy, power, knowledge, kindness, wrath, lordship etc. Taking your route it would be blasphemous to say any description at all since we would be paralelling it with makinds definition. That's funny because God seems to make a big deal about his attributes in the Quran...listing them so many times...the beginning of almost (except 1) every surah (most merciful and gracious). I think you should rethink your position.

It's not that radical a difference, but it is different (as I showed with the example in my last post) - you have to understand this in order to have a fruitful discussion when we are discussing such issues. Otherwise we move into logical fallacies.

This shouldn't matter - if all the attributes were in no contradiction.

How are they in contradiction?!

I'd be interested to know why you think omnibenevolence would not necessitate the existence of a 'heaven' or 'paradise' like place though.

I don't know what you mean. Personally, I think it makes perfect sense:
Person A: Practices Islam and believes in God until he dies. Reward: paradise
Person B: Doesn't practice Islam or believe in God. End place: Hell.

Where it gets a bit more complex and ''controversial'';
Person A: Is a completey ass-hole but believes in God until he dies. Reward: Paradise (note: he will spend time in hell to make up for his ass-hole attitude btw)
Person B: Perfect angel-like behaviour but does not believe in God. End place: Hell.

n.b. there are several tiers in paradise, with different criteria in each one to reward those of differing levels of belief in God.

The deciding factor is the belief in God. And on that basis, there are no holes or flaws in the judgement process. God is being true to His word. If it the other way round, everyone (including those who blasphemed against God and attacked those who believed in Him and His messengers) would go to paradise. That's not fair on those who worked for the same reward legitamely and honestly throughout their life.

You want paradise, you gotta earn it. Same with hell.

This is just special pleading. Its not an argument, its just semantics. You know as well as I do that everyone is going to argue from a 'human' person because, well, we're humans. What other point of view do you propose we come from?

Again this is the fallacy: you are fine with the concept of hell/heaven (i.e something that does not parallel mankind) but take issue with the judgement basis (because to you it does not parallel mankind). This is not semantics - it is a fallacy.

All you do is remind me that perhaps God means things differently than we do when we generally talk about 'justice'. Perhaps God means something totally different. Perhaps even, the attributes of God refer to something completely different than we imagine.

But then what's the point? You've argued yourself out of Islam's absolute focus on morality and/or its adherents often insistence that its precepts are intuitively rational and moral and into a vague world view of "who knows?". We know now that indeed, by your reckoning, all of our entire understanding of everything concerning morality could be completely different to that of God's - completelly nullifying any claim that God could get us to understand his way, and follow his way on moral terms.

I said there was a difference between mankind's and God's - not a gulf. You are making this issue bigger than it is.

Indeed, how do you determine anything about God if it could mean anything to you?

That's not what I was arguing. I really don't know what you want from me. You ask me a series of fallacious questions (from every stand point). I point this out to you and I'm accused of semantics/word play.

What exactly do you want from me?

 

[CosmicPathos]

Hey Lynx,

so why did you exactly leave Islam, or religion for that matter? The problem of evil?

 

[Skavau]

It's not that radical a difference, but it is different (as I showed with the example in my last post) - you have to understand this in order to have a fruitful discussion when we are discussing such issues. Otherwise we move into logical fallacies.

I know you said this to Lynx, but I should like to ask:

What is the difference you speak of? You need to tell us it before claiming there exists once.

How are they in contradiction?!

Oh I'm not saying they necessarily are (that might be for another thread, and I can see that running into a semantic hedge). But you've already told me that I am focusing far too much on the all-loving aspect rather than the other 98. I will say now that it is only the all-loving attribute that is necessary to conclude that a concept of paradise is completely consistent with God.

Unless of course, you have something to tell me about the other 98 that nullifies that?

I don't know what you mean. Personally, I think it makes perfect sense:
Person A: Practices Islam and believes in God until he dies. Reward: paradise
Person B: Doesn't practice Islam or believe in God. End place: Hell.

Okay, and I am sure I have asked you this time and time again: Why is #B fair? Why do you believe person B to be ending up in a place that fits his life?

Where it gets a bit more complex and ''controversial'';
Person A: Is a completey ass-hole but believes in God until he dies. Reward: Paradise (note: he will spend time in hell to make up for his ass-hole attitude btw)
Person B: Perfect angel-like behaviour but does not believe in God. End place: Hell.

n.b. there are several tiers in paradise, with different criteria in each one to reward those of differing levels of belief in God.

Oh okay

So your moral world view is in fact not moral - but grounded in obedience. No matter your behaviour or consideration to others, as long as you are a submissive figure to God - you recieve ward.

Perhaps omnibenevolence is not consistent with the concept of heaven after all. Looking after your own though, might be.

The deciding factor is the belief in God. And on that basis, there are no holes or flaws in the judgement process. God is being true to His word. If it the other way round, everyone (including those who blasphemed against God and attacked those who believed in Him and His messengers) would go to paradise. That's not fair on those who worked for the same reward legitamely and honestly throughout their life.

Oh for crying out loud.

I don't care about heaven in this analogy. None of anything in my argument rests upon greviences about nothing going to heaven. It rests upon greviences with the wastefulness, the sadism, the meaninglessness and the infinitely unjust retribution of torture. It rests upon God creating humanity and setting up those who would not or could not believe in him for a fall that no scale could match. It rests upon God decreeing that people who do not believe in him or Islam (not out of choice, belief is not a choice) for rational, moral and empirical reasons to suffer for eternity.

That is the stumbling block.

Again this is the fallacy: you are fine with the concept of hell/heaven (i.e something that does not parallel mankind) but take issue with the judgement basis (because to you it does not parallel mankind). This is not semantics - it is a fallacy.

No I don't.

I don't take issue with judgment. I am sure I've told you this already. I actually would go far as to renounce anti-theism to a divine arbiter that proposed negative judgment on those who were immoral and destructive to others and positive judgment on those who were moral and productive to others in life. I don't agree with judgment based on 'thought', and I don't accept punishment that is both eternal and sadistic in nature.

I said there was a difference between mankind's and God's - not a gulf. You are making this issue bigger than it is.

More semantics. I didn't use the word 'gulf' I was stating bafflement at your ridiculous requirements.

You've already repeatedly said that morality is different for God (without explaining how) and just said that I am wrong in observing from our perspective over and over.

That's not what I was arguing. I really don't know what you want from me. You ask me a series of fallacious questions (from every stand point). I point this out to you and I'm accused of semantics/word play.

You do engage in semantics and word play. I remember the pointless disagreement we had over thought-crime in another thread. It meant nothing. You just didn't like calling it 'thought-crime'.

But I echo your statement back: What do you want from me in this?

 

[Yusuf Saeed]

Originally Posted by Skavau
I'm sorry, I don't know what the term "transcends the human subjectivity" means.

Do you even know what morality means? I get the impression you really don't based on your analysis. Morality and more specifically ethical systems all concern themselves with what people ought and ought not do within a community of other people. It has nothing to do with an is claim (which is what you're leaning towards here).

Hi!

By "transcends the human subjectivity" I mean that the moral rules coming from God are above human subjectivity, all the rules produced by people themselves are bound to be subjective.

As morality is a rather wide term and doesn't only mean what people ought to and ought not to do we may just talk about right and wrong then to avoid further misunderstandings.

So, leaving the morality and changing it with "right and wrong" let's go back to the Nazi Germany example where there was a social agreement (of course that doesn't mean 100% of the people supported it) that it was right to kill the Jews. Most of us see it obviously as a wrong thing to do but as long as we don't take this opinion on the matter from what God has told us and instead use our feelings and emotions to decide on whether it was right or not then we are just subjective. To objectively claim that killing of these 6 million of Jews by the Nazi regime was wrong we need to base our claim on God as He is, again, above the human subjectivity.

Yes there was (to those who knew, although not completely universal as you might imply). They were wrong.

What is your claim that they were wrong based on? I base it on that God has taught it to be wrong but what is your basis?

How is God a 'standard'? What does that mean?

God is a standard because He created this world and people. When we take the idea of right and wrong (and if you like, the best morality) from messengers and scriptures that He has sent to mankind we can be objective in our claims as being a Creator He knows the best what is good for us and what is not, what is right and what is not.

Here's perhaps a more prudent question: Is something good because God decrees it so, or does God decree it so because it is good? You cannot claim both.

I do not claim both, but I do claim the first one of these two. The whole distiction between right and wrong comes from God and only He knows best what is good and what is bad.

So a test between obedience and disobedience?

Exactly!



Take care!

 

[Skavau]

By "transcends the human subjectivity" I mean that the moral rules coming from God are above human subjectivity, all the rules produced by people themselves are bound to be subjective

So what does God base these moral rules on?

How are they any less subjective?

As morality is a rather wide term and doesn't only mean what people ought to and ought not to do we may just talk about right and wrong then to avoid further misunderstandings.

Yes it does. The terms 'right' and 'wrong' mean exactly what one ought (right) and ought not (wrong) do. Even if we limit it down to personal conduct that is exactly what it refers to.

How do you measure right and wrong if not by actions?

So, leaving the morality and changing it with "right and wrong" let's go back to the Nazi Germany example where there was a social agreement (of course that doesn't mean 100% of the people supported it) that it was right to kill the Jews. Most of us see it obviously as a wrong thing to do but as long as we don't take this opinion on the matter from what God has told us and instead use our feelings and emotions to decide on whether it was right or not then we are just subjective. To objectively claim that killing of these 6 million of Jews by the Nazi regime was wrong we need to base our claim on God as He is, again, above the human subjectivity.

You've claimed God is 'above' our subjectivity, but you haven't really explained how.

I'd be interested to know also how you propose people ought to come to conclusions on ethical issues without reaching into their own intellect. There are many complex issues in real life that involve weighing up many issues relating to the lives of others and the suffering of others that no 'objective morality from God' can ever hope to solve. These are the real issues that go on all the time, that involve human subjectivity to resolve.

What is your claim that they were wrong based on? I base it on that God has taught it to be wrong but what is your basis?

The suffering it bought to others.

God is a standard because He created this world and people. When we take the idea of right and wrong (and if you like, the best morality) from messengers and scriptures that He has sent to mankind we can be objective in our claims as being a Creator He knows the best what is good for us and what is not, what is right and what is not.

So how is that objective?

It appears to be nothing more than obedience to an authority figure. You contend God knows right and has our best interests at heart and therefore we should follow him. From where does he get his knowledge from on this? Indeed if it is possible to 'know' (as you've implied with God) what we ought to do or ought not do objectively, then is God even necessary?

I do not claim both, but I do claim the first one of these two. The whole distiction between right and wrong comes from God and only He knows best what is good and what is bad.

That is frightening. The best thing I can say about it is that perhaps you are not being serious about it, or do not fully understand the rammifications of such a position. By this, it does not matter what God says to you - but only that God says it.

So you do not condone murder because of its suffering to others, but you condemn it because God happens to disapprove of it. You do not condemn rape, torture, slavery and other such vile acts because of the extent of human suffering involved with it - but you hold them in derision because God has told you to. This is not morality, this is submission to authority. The terms 'right' and 'wrong' become 'obedience' and 'disobedience' respectively. If this is true, and you really believe that things only have a moral value or lack of moral value because God comments on it - then you would have no grounds to disapprove of anything God could say. If God was to decree murder, you would have to support it. If God was to decree slavery, you would have to support it. Your own world view offers no reason nor rational to disapprove of this because it is all about God.

I do not call this morality, I call it obedience. You reference the Nazi's and my alleged inability to 'objectively' disapprove of their actions. The ironic thing from this is they were operating under the same position: the following of orders. Perhaps not from what they consider God (although some considered Hitler otherworldly) but nonetheless, their principle was the same and it was a part of some of their defences in the trials after the war.

The idea that 'God says it - therefore it is' has been one of the most destructive ideals of history. Countless people have abused it and told others to fight on behalf of it. Serial killers and murders claimed divine ordinance for their actions. Heads of states have justified the destruction of others because of it, and in this thread people are trying to justify eternal torture due to it. It is not the objective bastion of knowledge people make out, but an arbitrary and subjective system of obedience. Not only is it a catalyst for inhumanity, but it is also a superficial answer on a justification for objective morality. If you truely believe that God is the arbiter of all moral decisions, then ultimately - your position is what I would call one that is disinterested in humanity. It is a sidenote. A means to an ends of Gods will.

I hope that you do not seriously believe and act by this in life, and I suspect that many theists (even those that say they do) don't. I believe that people value humanity too much.

 

[Lynx]

Wow ... where did you get that 99% from?

Wow ... where did you get that 99% from?

Firstly, there is no guarantee that even if you were to see God with your own eyes that you would believe in Him.

Secondly, if you were to see God with your own eyes and were honest and came to believe in Him, that is no belief at all. Because if you rejected God in the first place after seeing Him, you would be an idiot. Faith is just that. Believing in the UNSEEN. Now, faith is strengthened by supporting arguments. To develop faith in the unseen, there are evidences for them. Rejecting those evidences will result in punishment.

The 99% was the assumption that if people meet x they will believe x exists. 1% for the idiots who still say no.

Anyway, I agree if I saw God it wouldn't be faith. But what I am arguing at here is punishing someone on having faith in something unseen/undetectable is absurd because that is in essence punishing someone for being rational (not believing in some proposition that has no reason to believed in). Either God is absurd or he expects people to believe in something for no reason and some people can't just believe in something if they have no reason which means God is asking of them a task that is not possible in which case God is absurd anyway. Which takes us to the next point:

The evidence of Quran is enough. You cannot claim that since many people are not impressed by the Quran then it is not an objective evidence because if it was objective, just like evidence of photoelectric effect showing the particulate nature of light, only an IDIOT would not believe in it, everyone would believe in it. Many do. Many dont

I didn't say its not objective because most people don't find it impressive. Perhaps I was unclear earlier but what I am asking for is objective evidence in the Quran. Literary merit is NOT objective. You cannot objectively argue that Rumi was a better poet than x. It'll be a subjective discussion and so since subjective arguments cannot prove something it follows that God punishes people for not having a subjective preference in which cause God is asking people to be rational and as I said before, it makes God appear absurd for he asks people to purposely become rational (this is impossible; no one chooses to believe in things they are either convinced or not)

The rejectors have a spiritual disease and hence they reject the evidence.

Okay. One may equally say you are unable to think critically and that is why you don't recognize the faults in your religion (I am not saying that but that is how absurd your comment was).

bring forth 3 verses like it that surpass it in literary value. Maybe explain anything that you like in those 3 values but which makes sense. maybe explain philosophical axioms in those 3 verses but at least do it?

I can pick 3 verses and I can claim they are better than 3 in the Quran. But who will judge? It'll be my view vs yours. Hence Quran is a subjective argument.

Greetings Lynx,

Thanks once again for the reply. Fantastic.

I did get the impression that you had heard the argument for the miraculous nature of the Qur'an before. Be that as it may, did you check out the links that I gave you?

Regards

I did but I was not sure where in the links you specifically wanted me to take a look. I did some general browsing. Perhaps you can point me to something you particularly found convincing?

AAMIR:

It's not that radical a difference, but it is different (as I showed with the example in my last post) - you have to understand this in order to have a fruitful discussion when we are discussing such issues. Otherwise we move into logical fallacies.

Yes, I think your definition of Justice (punishing someone for not believing in something that has no evidence) is extremely different from human definition of justice. I think you are approaching a question-begging definition of justice so you may be guilty of a logical fallacy here. Be careful.

Hey Lynx,

so why did you exactly leave Islam, or religion for that matter? The problem of evil?

No, I never felt the problem of evil was a strong enough objection to God. I mean IT DOES pose a problem for religion but it isn't concrete enough. I don't have a particular reason why I doubt islam...it's more like a list of problems that kept popping up as time went on. This thread is one of them. I have many more.

 

[CosmicPathos]

@ Lynx: "I can pick 3 verses and I can claim they are better than 3 in the Quran. But who will judge? It'll be my view vs yours. Hence Quran is a subjective argument."

First of all, its not a subjective argument. Your view will be judged by millions of speakers of Arabic language who are aware of classical arabic. If you can show in those 3 verses that you have greater mastery over Arabic language than Quran's author, you win.

Even in a painting contest, which is very subjective, a group of judges comes to a consensus on which painting among many should be classified as a winner. Just in case you did not know.

 

[Lynx]

Wahabi scientist:

So comparing two pieces of literature is objective? Are you kidding me? Even if people come to a consensus, it doesn't mean it's true. Argumentum ad populum.

 

[جوري]

The challenge is to bring a 'sura'/chapter even if it be as short as suret al-kawthar which is only three verses (as in the ability to tell us something either of the past/future/or be applicable to politics/economics/psychology/ afterlife/ prophecies/inheritance/business/govt. etc etc and have it be in the lyrical poetic style of the Quran which is unmatched!

He has asked for an objective formula before and I gave him a perfect formula from the Quran applicable to every day life and taught in universities, but he didn't like that route.. he'd like the route that fits his frame of mind, leaving me to wonder if there is any point whatsoever to this? it is an exercise in futility...

I think the best thing to do is to:

6:68 When thou seest men engaged in vain discourse about Our Signs, turn away from them unless they turn to a different theme. If Satan ever makes thee forget, then after recollection, sit not thou in the company of those who do wrong.

 

[CosmicPathos]

Wahabi scientist:

So comparing two pieces of literature is objective? Are you kidding me? Even if people come to a consensus, it doesn't mean it's true. Argumentum ad populum.

Comparing two pieces of literature, or painting as I showed, is subjective if you stick to aesthetic effects. if you start getting into the technical nature of language or painting, it becomes objective.

 

[جوري]

Comparing two pieces of literature, or painting as I showed, is subjective if you stick to aesthetic effects. if you start getting into the technical nature of language or painting, it becomes objective.

How does the literature affect us for comparative purposes? are we watching Shakespeare in love, or a midsummer's nights dream, or discussing the book that has influenced the course of history and the rise of successive empires?

nothing subjective about how a single book has transcended time and the course of history to be applicable today as it was millenniums ago.. once we have a book that can do all that and do it in the unparalleled lyrical style of the Quran, can we speak of a comparison subjective or not!


as stated akhi, I wouldn't waste time on vain discourse!

 

[CosmicPathos]

@ Lynx: "The Qur'an can only be described as the 'peak of eloquence'. It selects the perfect words in the most apt arrangements to achieve the intended communicative goal. When the Qur'an is compared to any other Arabic text, past or present, it transcends the choices made by human authors; including words, pronouns, sounds, rhythms and particles." [Hamza Tzortzis]

So lets say you take three verses of Quran and express what they say in a better way. How could you make it better? See the criteria mentioned above.

BUt of course, its not the first time the challenge has been given to you. Hence, as the sis mentioned, I opt out of this vain discourse that you have instigated.

 

[Yusuf Saeed]

So what does God base these moral rules on?

How are they any less subjective?

Hi!

As God has always existed He doesn't base his moral rules on anything but He has made them Himself and He's thus the only real source of objective right and wrong. These are not subjective because from one who Created the whole Universe with all the amazing natural laws we can only expect objectivity and you can't compare someone who has created all this with some human who comes up with moral rules and claims them to be objective.

You've claimed God is 'above' our subjectivity, but you haven't really explained how.

I'd be interested to know also how you propose people ought to come to conclusions on ethical issues without reaching into their own intellect. There are many complex issues in real life that involve weighing up many issues relating to the lives of others and the suffering of others that no 'objective morality from God' can ever hope to solve. These are the real issues that go on all the time, that involve human subjectivity to resolve.

As an atheist you probably don't properly understand the whole concept of God and that makes it difficult for you to grasp God's objectivity. A simple way how we Muslims see how God is above human subjectivity whold be as follows:
God exists and the proof of that can be found in the Qur'an (though not only in there) --> As God created everything He also created (the sense of) morality in people and the idea of right and wrong --> Therefore the most correct idea of what is good and what is bad can be only understood through His teachings to the mankind.


May I ask exactly which complex issues do you mean?

It appears to be nothing more than obedience to an authority figure. You contend God knows right and has our best interests at heart and therefore we should follow him. From where does he get his knowledge from on this? Indeed if it is possible to 'know' (as you've implied with God) what we ought to do or ought not do objectively, then is God even necessary?

As I stated before God never had a beginning. Also, he's All-Knowing and All-Wise. So there can be really no such question "from where does he get his knowledge on this?" as He Himself is the source of all knowledge.

Your question about whether God is even necessary when it's possible to know what we ought to do or ought not to do objectively makes no sense really. Firstly, if there was no God then we would not know what we ought and what we ought not to do. Secondly, giving us guidelines is not the only role He has had, for example among many other roles God Has He also will act as a Judge in the end.

That is frightening. The best thing I can say about it is that perhaps you are not being serious about it, or do not fully understand the rammifications of such a position. By this, it does not matter what God says to you - but only that God says it.

So you do not condone murder because of its suffering to others, but you condemn it because God happens to disapprove of it. You do not condemn rape, torture, slavery and other such vile acts because of the extent of human suffering involved with it - but you hold them in derision because God has told you to. This is not morality, this is submission to authority. The terms 'right' and 'wrong' become 'obedience' and 'disobedience' respectively. If this is true, and you really believe that things only have a moral value or lack of moral value because God comments on it - then you would have no grounds to disapprove of anything God could say.

Perhaps for you who you don't really know God at all it seems frightening but let me explain. As the basic sense of good and bad in every one of us has come from God then something is good only when God decrees so. There are no different goods, there's only one that has come from God. The causal relation here is that God has decided when creating this world and people what is good and what is bad and not so that first there was good and then God chose some of this good to fit his rules. That's why that question of yours was rather nonsensical in the first place.


But what if God has decreed killings of innocent and rape and torture wrong exactly because of the suffering it brings to the victims of these crimes? Then when I'm being obedient to God and following His rules of condemning such vile acts I also through these rules condemn it because of the suffering it brings to those victims. One doesn't rule out the other.

If God was to decree murder, you would have to support it. If God was to decree slavery, you would have to support it. Your own world view offers no reason nor rational to disapprove of this because it is all about God.

These two hypothetical claims have no basis because this is not the reality. God does not decree killings of the innocent neither slavery. "My own world view" would without God be subjective, God makes the way I view the world more objective though of course not thoroughly as no-one can have the full knowledge and understanding of God. So yes, it is all about God but that doesn't mean when condemning cruel acts I need to ignore that those acts bring suffering to people.



By the way, going back to the beginning of this discussion when you say that morality is what society makes it be like then how can you claim the immorality of Hellfire as you yourself don't accept the term "objective morality"? According to your claims in one society and according to the morals there Hellfire can be seen as moral while in the other society it can be seen as immoral so when you see morality solely as a societal affair how can you claim immorality of Hellfire?


Take care!