Proof that God exists!!!

That is the Islamic creed. We are created to worship God. This life is a test to see how we do- fail the test and you are punished with hellfire, pass and you are rewarded with paradise.
 
lol indeed.

This life is more than a test. This isn't a dress rehearsal either. It is the real deal. This is the big show, not the warm up act to some great afterlife existence. The time is now, the curtain is up, its a full house and the spotlight is on you. Time to dance.
 
Pygoscelis said:
lol indeed.

This life is more than a test. This isn't a dress rehearsal either. It is the real deal. This is the big show, not the warm up act to some great afterlife existence. The time is now, the curtain is up, its a full house and the spotlight is on you. Time to dance.
Click to expand...

It's all here and now baby.....:p
 
Strange. I posted the following, it appeared, then disappeared, and just now I received a note saying that someone had reponded to it -- but I still don't see it! Strange -- but I'm new to this game.

Anyway, with apologies if it's somewhere else -- and saddened if it has been censored, here it is again:

I had a little chat with Allah the other day, and she let me in on "the skinny". She said that, indeed, life was a test -- and that most people were failing it. She said that it's boring as hell in eternity, and she wanted to identify some company who could bring something original to the table. She said that she sent all the confusing and confused messages to humanity (in the Avesta, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Qur'an, the Vedas, and so on), to see who would buy into them, swallow them, regurgitate them, fight for them, and so on, rather than think for themselves. She said she only wanted those who, by themselves, could figure out right from wrong and how to live their lives.

She said that all the rest, the "believers", were like sheep, the elements in whose bodies she intended to just recycle in the Earth's environment, to see if they might eventually lead to more intelligent people. I suggested to her that such would mean that about 80% of the people in the world would be "recycled", but she said that it was closer to 99.99%. I asked her how she came to that figure, and she responded that very few people use their brains for what they were made for: to evaluate, to hold "beliefs" only as strongly as the evidence warrants, to estimate probabilities, to help intelligence evolve.

I asked her if she'd mind if I relayed her message to humanity. She said: "Whatever -- at least 99% of them won't listen to you anyway, and the rest don't need it; those few are already thinking for themselves and don't need any message from me."

So there you go: let those who have ears, listen; those who have eyes, see; those who have brains, use them for what they were made.
 
Malaikah said:
The reality is that God only told us that we were created to worship him, we don't have any other information. Only He knows the true wisdom behind His creating us.
Click to expand...

So you are suggesting that although God told us we were created solely to worship him, He might actually have had another reason He is keeping to himself?

I hope this doesn't offend anybody but I can see only two possibilities from that, either God does have an enormous ego (or self esteem issues, etc) as SilentObserver suggests - why else would He create something for the sole purpose of worshipping Himself? - or He has been quite specifically been 'economical with the truth' as to why we are here. If He did that, what else might He have been 'economical with the truth' about?

Logically, what other possibilities are there? None of this suggests there isn't a God, of course, but I just don't understand how it doesn't shoot down the idea of a totally benevolent one. Why would any benevolent and merciful entity set up a 'test', success being determined seemingly on acknowledging His existence and worshipping Him, and failure to do so resulting in eternal hellfire for those concerned? Those condemned are 'guilty' of no more than a scepticism that seems perfectly reasonable in view the lack of any real evidence for what they are supposed to believe in. I just cannot associate an "OBL goes to paradise, Gandhi goes to hell" scenario with benevolence and mercy. The whole Heaven/Hell scenario is totally incompatible with a benevolent God.
 
We do not have the authority to question why God does things. His Wisdom is greater than yours and mine. He created the whole universe, subhanallah. He created you and I and He has every right to do with us as He pleases.

Allah is greater than all that they attribute to Him.

May He guide mankind to His mercy.
 
Last edited:
Ok let's assume for a minute that this life is not a test and humans or the universe was no created by God (astagfarullah for sayin that). For those nonbeleivers and atheists, how would you be able to prove your existence? It's not as simple as saying because i have a brain or a nerveous sytem, because even a featus has this, but in and out of itself the featus cannot prove it's existence unless relied on the mother that is carryin it to assure its existence. Meaning that even though we may be able to prove our existence it will always be in reference to something or somone. If the notion of everything being created by chance prevailed than why would there be so many other thories of our being, because sometimes even logic and resoning is not enough to explain something, look at the area of medecine. Even the theory of probability has a probabilty to exist. The infinite regress must halt at one point, otherwise you can pose a question upon a question and never derive to an answer. We can't deny that everyhthing has a source, whether being an abstract thought or an object. To us muslims the source of our being is Allah, but when you're not aware of where you came about from how can you claim that other sources are not justified.
 
Well, let me respond one step at a time. First, you asked, "For those nonbeleivers and atheists, how would you be able to prove your existence?"

Although neither of the labels "nonbeliever" or "atheist" are appropriate for me, yet my response is that no existence can be "proved". Existence is an hypothesis, whose predictions must be tested. For example, if you proceed with the hypothesis that you exist, then I predict that you can read the rest of this sentence. Did it work?

Similar leads me to the conclusion that the chance of the hypothesis "I exist" being wrong is only about 1 part in 10^25. Yet, I still can't "prove", for example, that we're not a simulation in some giant computer game.

You then propose the proposition / question: "If the notion of everything being created by chance prevailed [then] why would there be so many other thories of our being..."

I don't see the connection. If you're asking why it took humans thousands of generations to understand more science, then I think there are many obvious answers.

You state: "Even the theory of probability has a probabilty to exist." I certainly grant you that! If you can't "prove" that you exist, it sure makes it difficult to "prove" anything else exists! But I'd put the probability (for the theory of probability existing) to be up there pretty close to the probability that you exist, i.e., ~ 0.9999999999999999999999999 .

You state: "The infinite regress must halt at one point, otherwise you can pose a question upon a question and never derive to an answer."

Well, I'd agree that it would be nice if the "regress" stopped, but let's not reach conclusions just because we want them to be so! That "proof by pleasure" principle is a very dangerous and ****able fallacy; it's led billions of people astray. That we may never "derive" an answer may be so -- but then, it'll keep humanity guessing and wondering and challenged!

You state: "We can't deny that everyhthing has a source, whether being an abstract thought or an object."

Well that's not so! Physics has identified billions of instances of things that "are their own source", e.g., all radioactivity.

You state / ask: "when you're not aware of where you came from how can you claim that other sources are not justified"?

Well, I have a fairly good idea where I came from -- although I admit to the possibility that maybe my parents told me less than the full "truth" -- and then, if someone comes along and says that the source of, say, cheese, is the Moon, I won't necessarily say that they're "unjustified", but I will ask them (as I asked Malaikah) for evidence to support such a "wild and wooly" claim. Thus, I asked Malaikah for evidence for his "wild and wooly" claim that Allah created the universe.
 
Maidah said:
For those nonbeleivers and atheists, how would you be able to prove your existence? It's not as simple as saying because i have a brain or a nerveous sytem, because even a featus has this, but in and out of itself the featus cannot prove it's existence unless relied on the mother that is carryin it to assure its existence. Meaning that even though we may be able to prove our existence it will always be in reference to something or somone.
Click to expand...


That opens a huge philosophical can of worms, but the response is a very old, and indeed famous one, cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I exist. No reference to anything external is required. It's a fascinating statement not least because it is self-confirming not once, but twice. Both "I think" and "I exist" have the unusual property that, to be formulated at all, they must be true.
 
Trumble: "Truth" and "proof" are applicable only to closed systems, not to the open system of reality (open in both space and time). Descartes' "proof" of his existence is invalid (and similarly for Aquinas' and Aristotle's "proofs"); at best, they're only "plausibility arguments".

More generally, one can never prove any existence via deduction, since a premiss of deduction is that logic is applicable, and a premiss of logic is that things exist and are distinct; therefore, any "logical proof" of the existence of anything is already contained in the premiss. Again (and all of ontology notwithstanding), any "existence" is an hypothesis, whose predictions are to be tested experimentally. Thereby, all of ontology is more properly treated as a subset of phenomenology.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top