Truth= god does not exist?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Ummm u made a double post.....:hiding:
Well lower or not they ARE still there...:hiding:

 

[Pygoscelis]

oops I tried to edit my post and I inadvertantly posted again. Read the one above this one instead of the one 2 up.

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

i did already lol...anyways carry on..

 

[Pygoscelis]

Well lower or not they ARE still there..

If you are refering to what I said about jail populations, yes they are still there. But the proportion of them incarcerated is lower. Their numbers in prison are not representative. A larger percetage of religious folk (in the west) are incarcerated than non-religoius folk.

That on its own doesn't prove that religious folk are less moral but it is evidence in that direction and when combined with the rest of my post above it certainly rebuffs the claim that "religious folk are obviously nicer and less aggressive".

 

[Trumble]

WOW!...This is definitely hilarious...You seem to have no sense of justice whatsoever. So you are telling me that if a psycho kills or orders the killing of 6 million innocent people in gas chambers or tortures them to death, his family should pay for it? WOW!...where are your brains?

Go re-read what I posted before you make even more of a fool of yourself. No, I was not telling you that. I was explaining what the consequences of an anarchist (go look it up) society might be, not those of an atheistic society or what I personally believe. You might even ponder as to why I used the phrase "an eye for eye".

Killing the innocent family members for the crimes that a person does is justice according to athiest? SubhanAllah! What a shame on your intellect. Think about what you said. This something new I leant today and it is extremely shocking and preposterous!

The only thing you need to learn today is that before you insult other people's 'intellect' you might need to develop your own a little, or at least your reading comprehension skills. It's not generally a good idea even then, but for once I'll ignore my own advice.

 

[Pygoscelis]

The only thing you need to learn today is that before you insult other people's 'intellect' you might need to develop your own a little, or at least your reading comprehension skills. It's not generally a good idea even then, but for once I'll ignore my own advice.

:giggling: Too true.

1. Try being civil and stop trying to insult people.

2. If you can't do the above at least make your insults coherent and not so ironic. You were calling this fellow stupid due to your own error in reading what he wrote. You tried to make somebody look dumb but only accomplished making yourself look dumb.

 

[Skillganon]

Undeniably a very strong argument, to which no theist ever seems able to come up with an even vaguely satisfactory answer.

It's easy to understand the perception that things such as complex biochemical systems could not have come about by chance, but the introduction of God as a 'watchmaker' only enhances the problem, not solves it. As you say, why does the universe require a creator while God does not? Ultimately something must have come into being without a creative intelligence behind it, so surely common sense, or at at least Occam's law, dictates that thing should be a simple as possible, not as complex as possible?

SO the argument goes, if the universe was created by God in some mechanism. Than how or who created God or how did he come into existance.

This kind of argument actually very weak and can carry on in a continouse cycle.

Ultimately the answer will lead to, that something existed in the beggining.

You will say the essence of matter, (not going into detail) existed in the beggining and from their the whole universe came into being under some elaborate mechanism after billions of year's.

We theist say the creator exist "He has no beggining no end (uncreated)" eternal and abolute, and he created the whole universe with elaborate mechanism over a period of time.

It is not complex to believe in a creator.

 

[Pygoscelis]

It amazes me how this point continuously flys over the heads of theists. Maybe something about religious belief blinds them to it somehow?

If you start with the premise that everything must have a cause, you have eliminated the possibility of a first cause. If you accept that something (God) doesn't require a cause, then the premise you started with is violated.

I'll try to put it into ten points of logic to illustrate the flaw...

1. A building is wonderful and complicated. Buildings are created by man.

2. Something wonderful and complicated must be created by intelligent design. (The classic theistic argument)
(Flaw In Logic: Generalization from an example)

3. Man is wonderful and complicated, even moreso than a building.

4. Man must therefore have been created by intelligent design (following 2 above)

5. God must have created man
(Flaw In Logic: Numerous origins are possible, even if intelligently designed, aliens for example)

6. God is wonderful and complex, even moreseo than man.

7. God must therefore be created by intelligent design (following 2 above and showing its fault)

8. But no, God has always existed.

9. Point 2 above must therefore be faulty.

10. Since point 2 above is faulty, point 4 and 7 above are invalid.

 

[Skillganon]

It amazes me how this point continuously flys over the heads of theists. Maybe something about religious belief blinds them to it somehow?

If you start with the premise that everything must have a cause, you have eliminated the possibility of a first cause. If you accept that something (God) doesn't require a cause, then the premise you started with is violated.

I'll try to put it into ten points of logic to illustrate the flaw...

1. A building is wonderful and complicated. Buildings are created by man.

2. Something wonderful and complicated must be created by intelligent design. (The classic theistic argument)
(Flaw In Logic: Generalization from an example)

3. Man is wonderful and complicated, even moreso than a building.

4. Man must therefore have been created by intelligent design (following 2 above)

5. God must have created man
(Flaw In Logic: Numerous origins are possible, even if intelligently designed, aliens for example)

6. God is wonderful and complex, even moreseo than man.

7. God must therefore be created by intelligent design (following 2 above and showing its fault)

8. But no, God has always existed.

9. Point 2 above must therefore be faulty.

10. Since point 2 above is faulty, point 4 and 7 above are invalid.

The point I am making you do believe something existed in the beginning.

non-theist go to do the primordial matter. Theist go one step further i.e. God.

(Here I have not touched on the Big Bang theory/creation of the univers in detail)

Actualy theist don't say "Creator" has a cause.
Neither do you say the primordial matter has a cause.

Nothing blind about it.

 

[Trumble]

SO the argument goes, if the universe was created by God in some mechanism. Than how or who created God or how did he come into existance.

This kind of argument actually very weak and can carry on in a continouse cycle.

Ultimately the answer will lead to, that something existed in the beggining.

You will say the essence of matter, (not going into detail) existed in the beggining and from their the whole universe came into being under some elaborate mechanism after billions of year's.

We theist say the creator exist "He has no beggining no end (uncreated)" eternal and abolute, and he created the whole universe with elaborate mechanism over a period of time.

It is not complex to believe in a creator.

If you must quote me, please don't assign arguments to me that I am not making?

No, I will not say that. My argument would be that space-time itself did not exist until the universe did. Talk of a 'beginning' before that, or of anything, God or otherwise, having some external existence outside that makes no sense, and is a contradiction in terms. It is quite true that that would mean God could come into existence without the need for a creator... but so could everything else He is supposed to have created. What He might have done with it after that is a different question!

That aside, the argument you refer to is not 'weak' for the reason you describe. The fact it suggests a continuous chain (rather than cycle) is its whole point. The theist response does nothing more than side-step it by introducing more complexity; i.e a being that for some reason conveniently doesn't have to follow the the same 'rules' as everything else in the universe.

 

[New_Muslim]

The exsistence of God can be proven through the Holy Qu'ran and understanding the life of Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) The Qu'ran is remarkably well written for a man who wasnt a scholar or anything. He lived a much more righteous life than many of the other people who were largely pagan. This was inspired by Allah.

 

[glo]

The exsistence of God can be proven through the Holy Qu'ran and understanding the life of Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) The Qu'ran is remarkably well written for a man who wasnt a scholar or anything. He lived a much more righteous life than many of the other people who were largely pagan. This was inspired by Allah.

Greeting New Muslim

You are talking about personal conviction here. Strong as that may be, it is not proof!

I do not think God's existance can be proven to a non-believer, even if we, as believers, feel that we have 'personal proof' of his existance - either through belief in a holy book or through a personal experience.
If somebody's heart is not prepared to believe, all the 'proof' in the world will fall on stony ground ...

peace

 

[Re.TiReD]

hey people...

I believe in God....but some people don't

I mean it's life isnt it...some people can see the truth, some people cant and others have different definitions of 'truth'

but the fact of the matter is...if you dont want to listen...or to believe, no amount of evidence or explanation will help.

most people when they come onto this thread arrive in a certain state of mind....the Muslims are on the defensive and the non-muslims more often than not prepared to criticise (in a good way of course kay: )

anyway what I'm trying to say is that Allah guides whom He wills and those that are not guided will never truley be

If you come with an open mind....Allah knows best what will happen but until then, its pointless if you're always prepared to argue but never to consider

 

[- Qatada -]

Pygoscelis, your theory is flawed. The reason for that is because yes - humans are an amazing creation, so are all the animals, buildings etc.

However, the flaw is that mankind has weaknesses, and man isn't perfect. Man isn't self sufficient and he depends on a greater power for help. If Allaah Almighty withholds the rain, there will be no food, water, and after a little while - the creation will die (which is another flaw within the creation.)




Does Allaah need food/water? Allaah isn't dependant on the creation. He doesn't need someone else to turn to for help, but instead He is self-sufficient. Allaah is Perfect in every way, whereas the creation isn't.

All that is on the earth will perish. But will abide (for ever) the Face of thy Lord,- full of Majesty, Bounty and Honour. [Qur'an (55:26-27)]
​

Why would the Most Perfect being need a Creator? He doesn't because He is the Creator. If someone is perfect, then they do not have flaws. If they don't have flaws, that means they aren't dependant on anything else. And Allaah is not dependant on anything whatsoever, whereas all the creation is dependant upon Him, the Almighty.



Allaah Almighty know's best.



Peace.​

 

[Trumble]

However, the flaw is that mankind has weaknesses, and man isn't perfect. Man isn't self sufficient and he depends on a greater power for help. If Allaah Almighty withholds the rain, there will be no food, water, and after a little while - the creation will die (which is another flaw within the creation.)

Quite apart from the flaw that you are trying show that God exists by assuming he does, and that I could easily argue man (or at least his genes) is perfectly self-sufficient providing he/they are prepared to take casualties along the way, I don't see how you think you are exposing a weakness in Pygoscelis's position?

You are assuming (again) that imperfect things need an intelligent designer, while perfect things (i.e God), for some reason, do not. Why? "He doesn't because He is the Creator" is another assumption (with no justification that I can see), not an explanation. There is simply no link between the two.

I'd also ask why God would have deliberately designed something imperfect, i.e us? Presumably designing perfection was in His powers? It must be or He himself could not be perfect. The only reason your post would suggest is that is was to set-up some sort of dependency on Him - why? To me that's right up there with the idea of a perfect being would create creatures just to worship him - it's nonsense because such a being would have no ego that required anything to worship him, or depend on him.

 

[Woodrow]

Quite apart from the flaw that you are trying show that God exists by assuming he does, and that I could easily argue man (or at least his genes) is perfectly self-sufficient providing he/they are prepared to take casualties along the way, I don't see how you think you are exposing a weakness in Pygoscelis's position?

You are assuming (again) that imperfect things need an intelligent designer, while perfect things (i.e God), for some reason, do not. Why? "He doesn't because He is the Creator" is another assumption (with no justification that I can see), not an explanation. There is simply no link between the two.

I'd also ask why God would have deliberately designed something imperfect, i.e us? Presumably designing perfection was in His powers? It must be or He himself could not be perfect. The only reason your post would suggest is that is was to set-up some sort of dependency on Him - why? To me that's right up there with the idea of a perfect being would create creatures just to worship him - it's nonsense because such a being would have no ego that required anything to worship him, or depend on him.

Very good points and are very accurate, if God(swt) does not exist.

However, God(swt) does exist and that leaves the statements as being assumptions.

You will not accept any reasons I have to know that God(swt) exists and you would never see any of them as proof. I can not offer any visable, quantafiable proof. It does not even make sense to even think of trying to offer proof in terms of quantification and qualification. That would require measurement of some aspect of God(swt). By His very nature God(swt) is infinite in all aspects. If we could develop a tool to physicaly measure an aspect of God(swt) that would be a limitation and would actualy be verification that God(swt) is not infinite and therefore not God(swt). To me it makes sense that we can not measure Him.


Since we can not provide replicable physical evidence, our source has to rely on the times He chose to reveal Himself to mankind. That we call the words of the Prophets. For myself and many believers that is sufficient.

To understand the basis for belief, a person has to see beyond what is measurable and has to have a spark of the thing we refer to as faith. I know faith exists. I believe the source of faith is God(swt)

I'm satisfied.

 

[Trumble]

I'm satisfied.

Which is fair enough, of course.

I'd still be curious, though, to see answer to my last point assuming that God does exist. Why, when being perfect, would He choose (for a choice it must have been) to create us imperfect which I suspect we can all agree on we are most certainly are?

 

[Woodrow]

Which is fair enough, of course.

I'd still be curious, though, to see answer to my last point assuming that God does exist. Why, when being perfect, would He choose (for a choice it must have been) to create us imperfect which I suspect we can all agree on we are most certainly are?

I am sure this is not the only reason. But, my personal view is so that we would have freedom of choice, and be aware that we do have the choice to not believe in him and to deliberatly sin if we so choose to do so.

 

[- Qatada -]

Quite apart from the flaw that you are trying show that God exists by assuming he does, and that I could easily argue man (or at least his genes) is perfectly self-sufficient providing he/they are prepared to take casualties along the way, I don't see how you think you are exposing a weakness in Pygoscelis's position?

Even if a person has healthy genes. It still doesn't make him self sufficient because food, water and other sources that mankind depends on are out of the equation.

You are assuming (again) that imperfect things need an intelligent designer, while perfect things (i.e God), for some reason, do not. Why? "He doesn't because He is the Creator" is another assumption (with no justification that I can see), not an explanation. There is simply no link between the two.



I'd also ask why God would have deliberately designed something imperfect, i.e us? Presumably designing perfection was in His powers? It must be or He himself could not be perfect. The only reason your post would suggest is that is was to set-up some sort of dependency on Him - why? To me that's right up there with the idea of a perfect being would create creatures just to worship him - it's nonsense because such a being would have no ego that required anything to worship him, or depend on him.

Allaah Almighty created us imperfect, and He has the power over all things. Creating us imperfect shows our weakness in this world and if we were created perfect - then why would we want to turn to Allaah Almighty anyway? One of the greatest time a person turns to God is in times of distress, and hardship. They feel that they don't have power over everything, so they turn to a greater power, and that is Allaah/God or whatever they choose to call Him - He is the same God that they all know of.

However, they may worship other idols, people etc. while still believing in the One God (this is even believed in hinduism who are common for the use of idols.) They only believe these idols, people etc. are a way of getting closer to the Creator, God.



Turning to Allaah for help is also a form of worship, so its a two way thing. When man is in need of help, he turns to Allaah, and Allaah will help the person if he/she is sincere. So worship benefits the creation, and it is a way of pleasing the Creator. Allaah Almighty isn't dependant on being worshipped by mankind, because Allaah is eternal, but mankind has only come to life since a limited amount of time.




Allaah Almighty know's best.



Peace.

 

[Grace Seeker]

My argument would be that space-time itself did not exist until the universe did. Talk of a 'beginning' before that, or of anything, God or otherwise, having some external existence outside that makes no sense, and is a contradiction in terms. It is quite true that that would mean God could come into existence without the need for a creator... but so could everything else He is supposed to have created. What He might have done with it after that is a different question!

It is more than that God exists outside of time. Time is a dimension. Just like space is a dimension. Now we understand how a dot is a singularity and has only one dimension. A line is two dimensions. If one exists in the world of the dot, even though that dot is part of a line, the dot is oblivious to the existance of that line because it is unable to observe outside of itself. Similarly a two-dimensional being can exist in the three-dimensional world of a cube, but would never be able to observe the cube. Though a line might travel all over the cube the plane of it's existence would be limited to just that, a plane. Now human's a four dimension beings, that is we are capable of observing things in 3 dimensions of space, plus time. But if there is an existence outside of those 5 dimensions, our sense are not equipped to obseve it. That doesn't mean such an entity would not exist, but that at best we could only observe it (and for that matter our language would be limited to speak of it) only in terms of the 4 dimensions we understand.

So, in this sense (no pun intended) we cannot prove God. However, rather than conceiving of God as simply creating the world, how about conceiving of the dimensions we live in existing in yet a 5th dimension. String theorists believe have postulated as many as 10 dimensions. Now I am not at this moment going to put a label on any of those other dimensions or aspects of them for you, but if you can conceive of this, then certainly you can conceive that their might also be other entities that exist in those dimensions. Might it be possible that God isn't simply existing outside of time and space, but that time and space (hence our entire universe) only exist wiith the context of God, just like a line only exists within the context of a plane?