Truth= god does not exist?

[Woodrow]

No, a lot of scientists believe in God. Who led the scientific world 1,200 years ago?

I stand corrected. Many scientists are very religious. I made a poor choice in my wording.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I always found it interesting that science is very much an offspring of religion, the first scientists were priests. Even the first geneticists were clergy (ie, see Mendel). Yet somewhere along the line at some point science became the frankenstein monster of religion and hardcore religionists started to hate science.

Now we have almost instinctual polarization of theists against scientific theories such as evolution (though there are some theists who will view evolution and creation as not in conflict, many do see them as in conflict). Its an interesting circle.

 

[Woodrow]

I always found it interesting that science is very much an offspring of religion, the first scientists were priests. Even the first geneticists were clergy (ie, see Mendel). Yet somewhere along the line at some point science became the frankenstein monster of religion and hardcore religionists started to hate science.

Now we have almost instinctual polarization of theists against scientific theories such as evolution (though there are some theists who will view evolution and creation as not in conflict, many do see them as in conflict). Its an interesting circle.

Quite true. It has come to the point that many people with religious beliefs have come to view science as being a synonom for atheism. That was the error I made in my post.

 

[------]

Re: Truth= god does not exsist!

God exists. Definitely. Who created something as complex as you? As your eyes? All come about by chance right? Think again.

Are you familiar with the Design Argument?

? ? ?

 

[Woodrow]

Just some food for thought. The concept of a god was brought up many thousnds of times by the pagans. Each of these gods was a concept to explain some thing unknown. Each and every one of those gods had very human or animal charecteristics. each can and was identified by the source of the concept. They have readily been shown to be mental imageries of physical objects.


Out of all the concepts of god only one concept of a creator with no begining and no end has ever been thought of. The concept of a God with no physical body and no need of one. An eternal god with no material body and unseen to humans. This is only the God(swt) of Abraham and of the prophets. Quite a giant step compared to the human concepts as to what a god should be. How could a concept as unbelievable as that ever be made into a viable belief by anyone? It would be far easier to believe a golden calf has godly powers than to believe that an invisible, eternal being was the Creator.

Unless, that Being had revealed himself to some people of indisputable honesty. Which is what we say Allah(swt) did. To me that is further evidence of the existance of Allah(swt). I can not believe that any primative human would have had the ability to sell the people on the idea of an invisible God(swt) unless that was true and He had revealed Himself so that all people could come to know Him(swt).

 

[- Qatada -]

Atheists say that it's illogical to believe in a God. But if something within this world can't be created by itself [i.e. a simple building], they say its easier to believe that this whole world only came by chance?

This seem's more illogical because believing in a Creator is much more easier than believing that the advanced universe was created by no-one.


The argument doesn't have to go any further than that because just like some atheists find the argument of perfection, and Allaah's creation weak, the believers find it even harder to believe in the theory of evolution.

Believing in a theory is just like having faith in a religion. Because the person can't prove that people evolved from tiny microbes. Yet the idea of believing that one man and one woman [Adam and Hawwa [Eve] (peace be upon them) were created, and them having an offspring which increases as time progresses is much more easier to believe. It's as simple as that.



Then you ask, what way of life must be the truth? The Creator created us for a purpose, and that is so we obey Him. The higher someone is in the hierarchy system, the more likely the people lower in the hierarchy will have to obey. But man is arrogant, he thinks he's self sufficient - yet he doesn't realise that if Allaah wanted to, He could withhold the rain from the clouds so the person would die within a few days.

Is this the same God that people say is Power hungry? Don't you know that if you submit to your Creator and repent to Him for your errors - He will send upon you even more blessings?



This world is a testing ground, and every action we do - we are responsible for it. Whether we like that or not. Those who repent for their mistakes in this world and feel guilt for their actions, then realise that Allaah is the Most Merciful. But those who reject their Creator, and His messengers - they too should realise that they will die one day, and everything will return back to its Lord, the Creator of the food that you eat and the water that you drink. And Allaah is swift in punishment.

That will be the day when Allaah will judge between us, and every soul ever created. Every atom of good that you do will be shown, and every atom of evil that you do will also be seen. Those who believed and did good will be rewarded for what they did in this world, and those who rejected their Creator will be punished because they rejected the Most Forbearing Allaah, His messengers and were ungrateful to Him.


The day when they will be thrown into a fire, because they rejected their Creator. So this day, Allaah will reject them.

Allaah loves those who turn back to Him in this world, sincerely.. He will bless them more in this world, They will have nothing to fear on the day of judgement, Allaah will give them whatever they desire in the eternal paradise and they will be able to see Him, the Lord of the worlds.



Allaah Almighty know's best.




​

 

[Pygoscelis]

Out of all the concepts of god only one concept of a creator with no begining and no end has ever been thought of.

I very much doubt that, given the millions of Gods that have been believed in throughout history, remembered and forgotten. It is quite a claim to be making.

 

[جوري]

I very much doubt that, given the millions of Gods that have been believed in throughout history, remembered and forgotten. It is quite a claim to be making.

Who are these millions of G-D's? There has always been one ... some people have found idolatry more approachable or believable than the one G-D so they created statues and slapped names on to them danced around and worshipped them due to this innate need to worship or at least to find answers. I believe it is the same reason that has led you here?.... All throughout history ... messengers whose names we know and some we don't have come to show people the way ... hundreds and even thousands of years apart attesting to the same one G-D... I don't know how these folks in more primitive times could come with the same message over and over without some divine inspiration?.... I sense your reluctance but not full opposition to religion ... why not read the Noble Quran and come back and tell us what you think?
peace

 

[Trumble]

I agree, its one God (or aspects of God) with many names, not many gods. Where I would disagree, as you know, is what that God is or represents, and hence what 'divine inspiration' actually is.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Atheists say that it's illogical to believe in a God. But if something within this world can't be created by itself [i.e. a simple building], they say its easier to believe that this whole world only came by chance? ​

Not believing in God, especially a specificly named God, does not necesarily mean believing that the world came about by chance (ponder that one). Nor does it necesarily mean not believing in a creator, sentient or otherwise.

This seem's more illogical because believing in a Creator is much more easier than believing that the advanced universe was created by no-one.

Ease of belief doesn't make something more or less likely. In ancient times I bet people would have had a much easier time believing that the earth was flat than round.

Believing in a theory is just like having faith in a religion.

That depends on what you mean by "believing in a theory". If somebody clings to the theory of evolution and ignores or discards any evidence to the contrary out of devotion to the theory then yes, I would agree, it is very much like religious belief.

Scientists who are worth their salt are not like this. Science is based on the revision or discarding of a theory once a better theory comes along that fits the observed phenomena better.

Is this the same God that people say is Power hungry? Don't you know that if you submit to your Creator and repent to Him for your errors - He will send upon you even more blessings?

Well if he's the creator he's entitled to lord over you I suppose. It still seems awfully master/servant to me though. I and many atheists like me wouldn't submit to Allah even if we believed that he existed (or so we believe, can't really know for sure since we don't believe he exists).

Call it pride, call it arrogance, call it what you wish, but we simply place too high a value on freedom and self direction to enslave (i'm sorry if that word is offensive but I can't think of a less offensive one with the same meaning) ourselves to ANYTHING, not a King, not even a God. We are the masters of our own selves. Maybe thats a major difference between theists and atheists, the importance we place on freedom and self ownership.

This world is a testing ground, and every action we do - we are responsible for it. Whether we like that or not. Those who repent for their mistakes in this world and feel guilt for their actions, then realise that Allaah is the Most Merciful. But those who reject their Creator, and His messengers - they too should realise that they will die one day, and everything will return back to its Lord, the Creator of the food that you eat and the water that you drink. And Allaah is swift in punishment.

I'd like to know how this works in Islam. If I do something wrong to somebody, am I expected to seek their forgiveness or only that of Allah? In Christianity I am disgusted by the notion that it is God's forgiveness and not the person I've wronged that matters most. I hate the idea in Christianity that belief and subservience to God is just as or even more important than being good to my fellow humans.​

 

[Woodrow]

I very much doubt that, given the millions of Gods that have been believed in throughout history, remembered and forgotten. It is quite a claim to be making.

Not that much of a claim. If the claim had been presented by another goup of people it seems it's uniqueness would have caused quite a stir.


It is true that from a debate stand point it is an error to say something is a singularity, impossible, always or never.

 

[جوري]

it seems our dear member "Pygoscelis" seems to think we worship a "specificly named God" as I notice it, mentioned over and over in several of his posts. I need to ask. What do you notice is the difference between
Allah, God, Dios, 上帝, Dieu, Gott, Θεός, 神, Бог? Do you think they are different entities or just the one God many different tongues? Lord of the universe, one message for ALL OF MAN KIND, no one is excluded and no one is favored? I really would like a sincere answer for that Question, as Allah to us is basically God to you in English. The only difference would be whereas you can engender or make plueral the word God you can't with Allah (SWT). There is no Gods and no Goddess... Just lord of the universe, heaven and earth and what is in between. Same God for all of man kind......

 

[- Qatada -]

Not believing in God, especially a specificly named God, does not necesarily mean believing that the world came about by chance (ponder that one). Nor does it necesarily mean not believing in a creator, sentient or otherwise.

Allaah is the name of God, the Creator in arabic because it's the best wording a person can use. Whereas the term 'god' can be used to give God a gender (i.e. goddess) or pluralise (i.e. gods) or even other aspects such as 'godfather, godmother' etc. However, in arabic - Allaah just means 'the God' and it cannot be classed as a gender, nor can it be pluralised, and neither can it be related to father, mother etc.

Ease of belief doesn't make something more or less likely. In ancient times I bet people would have had a much easier time believing that the earth was flat than round.

They may have, but this still doesn't differ. As long as humanities existed, the majority of mankind has always believed in a Creator. No matter what they labelled Him, the difference between them is that they differ on whether He should be worshipped, or if He should be worshipped with associates or not.

This is why islaam is totally different to the other faiths - because worshipping Him alone without seeing Allaah without guidance is a hard task. Some fell into the trap of worshipping idols, others worshipped humans even though they believed in the Creator. They did it because they felt they needed a focusing point which they could visualise.


However, with the guidance from the messengers of Allaah - man isn't really in need of seeing his Creator in this world because reflecting on the creation is sufficient to believe in a Creator.

We don't have the exam results, but we can reflect on the previous exam papers to realise the consequences of the ones who have failed.

That depends on what you mean by "believing in a theory". If somebody clings to the theory of evolution and ignores or discards any evidence to the contrary out of devotion to the theory then yes, I would agree, it is very much like religious belief.

Scientists who are worth their salt are not like this. Science is based on the revision or discarding of a theory once a better theory comes along that fits the observed phenomena better.

The scientists that predict these theories weren't alive millions of years ago. Therefore their proofs aren't strong. Similarly, i wasn't alive when Adam and Hawwa (peace be upon them) were in this world, so like i said earlier - both parties depend on faith.

Well if he's the creator he's entitled to lord over you I suppose. It still seems awfully master/servant to me though. I and many atheists like me wouldn't submit to Allah even if we believed that he existed (or so we believe, can't really know for sure since we don't believe he exists).

Call it pride, call it arrogance, call it what you wish, but we simply place too high a value on freedom and self direction to enslave (i'm sorry if that word is offensive but I can't think of a less offensive one with the same meaning) ourselves to ANYTHING, not a King, not even a God. We are the masters of our own selves. Maybe thats a major difference between theists and atheists, the importance we place on freedom and self ownership.

I'm proud to be a slave of Allaah because theres nothing better any person could be. The Creator has a right over His servants because the purpose of the creation is to obey Allaah, and in return get rewarded for it - in this life and the hereafter, and the one's who disobey and reject Him will be punished in this life and the hereafter.

If you seriosly think you obey no-one, realise that your obeying the nation that you're living under. This president or prime minister that legislates a law, he/she may have commanded you something which you might oppose personally. But either way, you have to obey this law because if you disobey and get busted, realise that you will be punished for your crime.


Who gave the prime-minister the right to do that? Is it because he's from a more richer family than you, more knowledgable than you - so he has the right to apply and reject laws? If you feel that it's fair, then this person has the right to abuse his/her powers and force you to do what you hate. If you want to drive at 160mph, and the laws say otherwise - you're actually obeying the government because they legislated that. Is that the real freedom that you desire? Isn't this going against the freedom that the atheists desire?

I'd like to know how this works in Islam. If I do something wrong to somebody, am I expected to seek their forgiveness or only that of Allah? In Christianity I am disgusted by the notion that it is God's forgiveness and not the person I've wronged that matters most. I hate the idea in Christianity that belief and subservience to God is just as or even more important than being good to my fellow humans.

If you do something wrong, part of the repentance process is to tell the person you're sincerely sorry, be regretful of your action and repent to Allaah because you disobeyed His legislation. If a person is sincere in their repentance, Allaah may even forgive the persons sins and turn them into good deeds.




Allaah Almighty know's best.




Peace.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I have yet to meet an individual that can prove the existence of this unseen entity that is known universally as god. My core beliefs stem from the fact that this world came to be by mere chance and probability. That is why I would to like call out to any one that can prove to me (once and for all) the existence of this so called god ( or maybe gods ……ha-ha).

P.S please try to use references to prove your points that are based on solid scientific facts

If I may, I would prefer to ask a question. Do you attribute some human endeavors to be good and others to be bad? If so, then what is the standard you use to determine that which is good? You answer this, and then maybe we can talk about God.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Call it pride, call it arrogance, call it what you wish, but we simply place too high a value on freedom and self direction to enslave (i'm sorry if that word is offensive but I can't think of a less offensive one with the same meaning) ourselves to ANYTHING, not a King, not even a God. We are the masters of our own selves. Maybe thats a major difference between theists and atheists, the importance we place on freedom and self ownership.

But as you alluded to one does not have to believe in a God to believe in a creator. So one does not have to give up freedom when choosing to serve Allah or God or for that matter a person. One who freely chooses to serve always has the option to choosing to quit serving. Submission is a willingness to exercise one's freedom to serve gladly. But it is not loss of freedom for such submission is not under compulsion.

I'd like to know how this works in Islam. If I do something wrong to somebody, am I expected to seek their forgiveness or only that of Allah? In Christianity I am disgusted by the notion that it is God's forgiveness and not the person I've wronged that matters most. I hate the idea in Christianity that belief and subservience to God is just as or even more important than being good to my fellow humans.

Actually that is a mis-statement of the concept of forgiveness and responsibility for one's actions in Christianity. Love of neighbor and love of God are equally commanded in both Christianity and Judaism before it. In the Christian way of thinking, "Sin" is that which separates an individual from God. It isn't just a specific act, it could be the lack of an act one should have performed, a thought, anything that stands between you and who God calls you to be. Some of these actions also impact other human beings for God calls us to live in constructive human relationships with one another.

Jesus (pbuh) told his followers to actually leave their gift at the altar and go and seek reconcilation with those that we have offended before continuing to worship, and then to come back and offer our gift to God. So, you can see the high value placed on the horizontal relationship between individuals, not just a verticle relationship with God.

However, it is also true that when one does not follow God's directed will toward others that we not only destroy those relationships with people, we also damage our relationship with God. Now if you think it ridiculous to seek God's forgiveness for what we do to people, how much more so would it not also be ridiculous to seek people's forgiveness for what we have done to God. No amount of apologizing to human beings is going to atone for the damage done to the intended relationship God seeks to have with us as God's creation. When what we do breaks our relationship with God, it is God to whom we need to apologize and from whom need to seek forgiveness.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Do you think they are different entities or just the one God many different tongues?

I'm sure many of the Gods were reformations of earlier Gods, but I'm also sure some are completely unique. The Aztecs for example had no communication with the Egyptians so their pantheons of gods are likely not derivitive of each other.

When I say a specifically named God I mean just that. Allah, Jehova, Thor, Bast, Mithras, whoever. Each theistic religion has their own conception of God or Gods and most have VERY specific claims about who or what they are, what they demand, what they dislike etc.

It is a huge step to go from "The world was created" to "The creator was sentient" and then another big one from that to "The creator is divine" and another big step to "The God is named W and wants me to worship on the holy day X three times and do action Y and not do action Z"

 

[Pygoscelis]

Allaah is the name of God, the Creator in arabic because it's the best wording a person can use. Whereas the term 'god' can be used to give God a gender (i.e. goddess) or pluralise (i.e. gods) or even other aspects such as 'godfather, godmother' etc. However, in arabic - Allaah just means 'the God' and it cannot be classed as a gender, nor can it be pluralised, and neither can it be related to father, mother etc.

Interesting. But I don't know why you posted it under the text you quoted?

They may have, but this still doesn't differ. As long as humanities existed, the majority of mankind has always believed in a Creator.

Which says nothing to whether or not such a creator exists.

The scientists that predict these theories weren't alive millions of years ago. Therefore their proofs aren't strong.

This simply makes no sense. How does their age effect the strength of their theories? As to their "proofs", science doesn't set out to prove anything, just to come up with the theories that best explain the observations.

I'm proud to be a slave of Allaah

Cultural difference perhaps. I simply could not become a slave. I value freedom too much for that.

If you seriosly think you obey no-one, realise that your obeying the nation that you're living under. This president or prime minister that legislates a law, he/she may have commanded you something which you might oppose personally. But either way, you have to obey this law because if you disobey and get busted, realise that you will be punished for your crime.

I live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. I actually have a say in what those laws are. I also have the freedom to leave my country if I so wish and not be tortured as a result.

Even if I do stay in my country and break the law, my country will not resort to cruel and unusual punishment or torture (ie hellfire). My country will not punish me forever either. The aim of criminal law here isn't punitive but reformative. The idea isn't to punish wrongdoers because they are evil, but to reform them into being good. Eternal punishment would fly in the face of that.

I'm sorry but the God/Nation analogy is flawed in so many ways.

If you do something wrong, part of the repentance process is to tell the person you're sincerely sorry, be regretful of your action and repent to Allaah because you disobeyed His legislation.

Ah but which is more important? To apologize and make it up to the person you wronged or to repent to Allah?

 

[Pygoscelis]

If I may, I would prefer to ask a question. Do you attribute some human endeavors to be good and others to be bad? If so, then what is the standard you use to determine that which is good? You answer this, and then maybe we can talk about God.

I'll answer that one even though it wasn't directed at me. I do not believe in inherent good and evil, but only in socially constructive and socially destructive behaviour. I also have some social taboos that have been programmed into me via the society I live in (which are probably not really destructive but are just taboo) such as nudity and taboo words that have no racial or other slur value, such as the F word.

 

[جوري]

I'm sure many of the Gods were reformations of earlier Gods, but I'm also sure some are completely unique. The Aztecs for example had no communication with the Egyptians so their pantheons of gods are likely not derivitive of each other.

.......Their God were false idolatries.... and Yes God send them messaner (Moses) ( Joseph) to name a few to let the people of the one true creator of the universe... messangers hundreds of years apart essentially stating the same thing. Books made for mass distribution was an invention of the 1500's. Why would random people come speaking of the one God or even risk persecution which they all suffered on the hands of those very reluctant to give up their false dieties?

When I say a specifically named God I mean just that. Allah, Jehova, Thor, Bast, Mithras, whoever. Each theistic religion has their own conception of God or Gods and most have VERY specific claims about who or what they are, what they demand, what they dislike etc."

No! monothesism which encompasses the vast majority of the world religions and population speaks of the same ONE God..... if you research ancient text you'll see the same thing prescribed to all people...

It is a huge step to go from "The world was created" to "The creator was sentient" and then another big one from that to "The creator is divine" and another big step to "The God is named W and wants me to worship on the holy day X three times and do action Y and not do action Z"

I am not sure I understand what you are talking about here? if you notice anything judiasm/ christianity and Islam have in common in spite of differences through the teachings of the messangers, is to believe in one God, to perfom prayers, to fast, to give to charity... same forbidden actions are no different than rules set by society... but you'd follow them out of fear of making it on FBI most wanted list... Just not when it comes to God the one who set the rules forth to begin with........
peace!

 

[Trumble]

It is a huge step to go from "The world was created" to "The creator was sentient" and then another big one from that to "The creator is divine" and another big step to "The God is named W and wants me to worship on the holy day X three times and do action Y and not do action Z"

It is indeed, and I agree they are steps that are dubious in the extreme.

The fundamental difference between non-believers in this context and followers of the monotheistic religions is faith in revelation, that all three of those steps as set down by assorted prophets and their later interpreters were either given directly or inspired in some way by a sentient divinity.

If you don't believe that, as I (and obviously you) don't, you have no option but to conclude that those 'steps' are creations of men. Those men may well have been particularly spiritually accomplished, and I believe they were, but all we have from them is their own interpretations of their own spiritual experience; in that respect no different from the interpretations of the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Zoroaster and others. It is the same experience - there is only one ultimate reality.

If you do believe it, it has to be a matter faith as such belief must entail 'begging the question'.. you can't believe that a particular revelation, Qu'an, Bible, Torah, whatever, came from God unless you believe in God in the first place. If you do, then those are easy, and indeed totally logical steps to take. But its faith, that's 'all'.