What it would take for me to believe

[TheRationalizer]

This thread is not to argue whether there are any miracles in the Quran, nor is it to argue whether or not there is a god...

There are really two separate issues. The issue of whether our universe was created by a conscious act, and if it was then also the issue of whether or not this consciousness has sent us instructions (theism) or is non intervening (deism.)

I'll start from the bottom up.

RELIGION​

Why I don't accept a religion

What I observe in the world though is that many people make up many religions, it still happens today - I think Muslims will agree that Mormonism is man made. The technique used is that an individual will claim that god is speaking through them (directly or indirectly) and that on that authority everyone else should listen to them. When asked to present evidence of supernatural intervention they implore people to "believe out of faith" and "to demand proof is wicked and arrogant" - because natural beings cannot provide supernatural evidence.

Keeping in mind that this is the standard strategy by which humans create religion it is therefore impossible for me to believe any religion that came about in a similar fashion. It makes no sense to me that god would create a religion by utilising the exact same techniques of fraudsters.

What would it take me to accept a religion?

If I had opened the Quran and the first thing I saw was 299,792,458 I would today be a Muslim. This is the speed of light in a vacuum. Although there are alternative extraordinary explanations as to how this information could have arrived

God told Muhammad
An alien told Muhammad
A time traveller told Muhammad

I wouldn't really see any way of deciding which was the case, but the fact that the rest of the book claimed to be authored by the creator of the universe I think I could give the benefit of the doubt and accept it was from god Apart from knowing the speed of light in a vacuum it would also demonstrate knowledge of the future, because the number is presented in kilometres per hour, a unit of measurement which was not created at the time - so it would be a kind of "two birds with one stone" scenario.

GOD​

Why I don't accept there is a god
To determine the cause of something we gather evidence. In nature this is simple as we have many instances from which to gather information, but with the universe we currently only have one to gather data from. We cannot see how this universe started, if it is the first universe, the only universe, and so on.

The answer to the question "How did the universe get here" for me is a resounding "I do not know", and I'd rather have no answer than the wrong answer. Not knowing is acceptable, accepting answers as truth without evidence ("truth without proof") is unacceptable.

For example, it's easy for someone to conclude that the universe was created, but why does this automatically mean it was created by "god"? There is no more or less evidence to suggest the origin of the universe was

One god
Two gods
Lots of gods
Another universe
Energy from some other dimension
etc

And if we say that whatever created it should be named "God" because god is a role rather than a being then we have no more evidence to suggest that

God was a conscious being rather than some natural process that creates universes.
God gave up its own existence in order to create the universe (the ultimate selfless sacrifice)

So with a lack of religious conviction there is no reason for me to say there is/isn't a god, or what the attributes of such a god should be. My atheism is merely a reflection of having a complete lack of conclusive evidence. All we have is an argument from ignorance - "I don't know how the universe got here.....therefore (insert religious belief of your choice)".


What would it take me to believe in a conscious creator of the universe?

If a being appeared in front of me and resurrected the dead body of my grandmother who said "Accept that this is god" I would accept that this is a very powerful being, but I would not also automatically accept it was responsible for creating the universe. As Arthur C Clarke once put it "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

The only evidence I can think of that would convince me that a concious being created the universe (if I have no evidence of a credible religion) would be a message within the creation itself. There might be a way to embed a message within the fabric of the universe after the fact, but I'd expect there would be a way of determining that any slight alteration to the message would result in an infeasible universe.

If we were to find a universal law of physic for example, and it was based entirely on a binary pattern which translated to "I am the creator" then I would accept intelligence created our universe. If the message went as far as to say "I am the creator, and (religious leader of your choice) was my messenger" then needless to say I would accept that religion too.


What about you?

My position is that I have no preference as to what the truth is, I only care that I possess it. Given the right level of evidence to match the incredibility of the claim I will accept anything.

Are you also more interested in possessing the truth than you are satisfying your preference for what format the truth should take? If so, what kind of evidence do you think would convince you that

Atheists
A: The universe was created by intelligence
B: This intelligence has sent us instructions in the form of a religion

Theists
A: You are following a false religion.
B: There is no god.

PS: In the interests of interesting discussion I'm only interested from hearing from atheists and theists who do not answer that there is nothing that could convince them that they are wrong.

 

[Zafran]

what would you say about your past ancestors that you have no historical or empircal proof of? they clearly didnt exist as we have no evidence of them actually existing? right? You could have came out the table or a chair, an animal?

anyway
A - so what religion is right and why?
B - Except God.

 

[TheRationalizer]

what would you say about your past ancestors that you have no historical or empircal proof of? they clearly didnt exist as we have no evidence of them actually existing? right?

Thanks for your thoughts.

If I were to suddenly find myself standing here with no knowledge and I was the only person in existence I was aware of then you would be correct, however we currently have a sample size of over 6 thousand million people - and as far as we can see all of them exist because they had a male and a female parent

anyway
A - so what religion is right and why?
B - Except God.

Sorry, I didn't understand.

 

[Zafran]

Thanks for your thoughts.

If I were to suddenly find myself standing here with no knowledge and I was the only person in existence I was aware of then you would be correct, however we currently have a sample size of over 6 thousand million people - and as far as we can see all of them exist because they had a male and a female parent

that doesnt explain who the ancestors were - sample size of 6 thousand million people just shows that a sample of six thousand million poeple - It doesnt answer the question who the ancestors were? How do you know that they had a male and female parent - did you see them - do you have any historical recordings of who the ancestors were?

Sorry, I didn't understand

I was answering the question A and B.

 

[TheRationalizer]

that doesnt explain who the ancestors were - sample size of 6 thousand million just shows that and sample of six thousand million poeple - It doesnt answer the question who the ancestors were? How do you know that they had a male and female parent - did you see them - do you have any historical recordings of who the ancestors were?

It's not just everyone alive now. Most people know their parents, and many knew the grandparents too. That's how they know they had ancestors. We see it occur in nature every day. I have no idea what your point is, sorry.

 

[Zafran]

It's not just everyone alive now. Most people know their parents, and many knew the grandparents too. That's how they know they had ancestors. We see it occur in nature every day. I have no idea what your point is, sorry.

Yep you probably could find out your ancestors times 10 or further back - but if I asked you ancestors times 1000, or even million you'll probably have no idea who they were as you have no proof of there existence. So they clearly didnt exist?

 

[TheRationalizer]

Yep you probably could find out your ancestors times 10 or further back - but if I asked you ancestors times 1000, or even million you'll probably have no idea who they were as you have no proof of there existence. So they clearly didnt exist?

The observed reality is that humans are born from having male and female parents, therefore it is the correct default position. I cannot name more than X generations back that is true, but seeing as we have a massive sample size to draw from and no exceptions to the rule making it the default position there is no reason to assume anything other than the default position is accurate. In addition to this we have DNA evidence showing how humans are all related and how humans migrated from the South to other parts of the world.

I still don't know why you are asking me this. My question was after all asking what it would take atheists/theists to change their minds on their current positions. I have already explained what it will take for me to change my mind - so what about you?

 

[Zafran]

The observed reality is that humans are born from having male and female parents, therefore it is the correct default position. I cannot name more than X generations back that is true, but seeing as we have a massive sample size to draw from and no exceptions to the rule making it the default position there is no reason to assume anything other than the default position is accurate. In addition to this we have DNA evidence showing how humans are all related and how humans migrated from the South to other parts of the world.

I still don't know why you are asking me this. My question was after all asking what it would take atheists/theists to change their minds on their current positions. I have already explained what it will take for me to change my mind - so what about you?

Thats not the default position - The default position is you dont know - Its like saying the sun will rise the next day because it has risen in past - It suffers from the problem of induction. Furthermore DNA evidence of how many humans? clearly not all?

Ultimatly your putting faith that your past ancestors did exist because of some DNA evidence of a few million thousand people.

Its based on belief.

 

[جوري]

Why I don't accept a religion

question is why should anyone care? The road to theism or atheism is a solo journey not a communal effort. You seem so irresolute about your choice that you tabulate your objections as if irrevocably factual and expect that everyone should draw from your faulty premise simply because you conjectured it.

interests of interesting discussion I'm only interested

that says a mouthful about where this discussion is headed.

good luck with all of that!

 

[TheRationalizer]

Thats not the default position - The default position is you dont know - Its like saying the sun will rise the next day because it has risen in past - It suffers from the problem of induction.

The prediction that the Sun will rise the next day is not based merely on the fact that it has happened every day in the past (inductive) but in addition an understanding of why the Sun will rise the next day (deductive.)

Ultimatly your putting faith that your past ancestors did exist because of some DNA evidence of a few million thousand people.
Its based on belief.

So what are you saying? My ancestors only go back as far as I can trace my family tree?

 

[Zafran]

The prediction that the Sun will rise the next day is not based merely on the fact that it has happened every day in the past (inductive) but in addition an understanding of why the Sun will rise the next day (deductive.)

so why will it rise the next day and how do you know for sure? You'll have to show me how this is deductive?

So what are you saying? My ancestors only go back as far as I can trace my family tree?

Do you think thats absurd? I mean there is no proof any further outside the tree? we just dont know? do you agree?

 

[aadil77]

It seems all you're after is scientific discoveries in a book which teachings mankind about faith

you say:

If I had opened the Quran and the first thing I saw was 299,792,458 I would today be a Muslim

I highly doubt that, prophet Muhammad split the moon in half when a group of disbelievers asked for a miracle in order for them to accept islam - they still did not believe

 

[Mr.President]

question is why should anyone care? The road to theism or atheism is a solo journey not a communal effort. You seem so irresolute about your choice that you tabulate your objections as if irrevocably factual and expect that everyone should draw from your faulty premise simply because you conjectured it.


that says a mouthful about where this discussion is headed.

good luck with all of that!

a bold full stop

 

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with everyone),

Well, I had a nice long reply refuting the Athiest thing and putting in a very good arguement as to why a man couldn't have produced the Quran, then I accidently kicked my wire and that's it. What a shame.

Anyways, if your down the road to Science, here's some encouragement for you -

The essential and definite element of my conversion to Islam was the Qur’an. I began to study it before my conversion with the critical spirit of a Western intellectual. There are certain verses of this book, the Qur’an, revealed more than thirteen centuries ago, which teach exactly the same notions as the most modern scientific researches do. This definitely converted me. [Ali Selman Benoist, France, Doctor of Medicine]

I have read the Sacred Scriptures of every religion; nowhere have I found what I encountered in Islam: perfection. The Holy Qur’an, compared to any other scripture I have read, is like the Sun compared to that of a match. I firmly believe that anybody who reads the Word of Allah with a mind that is not completely closed to Truth, will become a Muslim. [Saifuddin Dirk Walter Mosig]

I am impressed that how remarkably some of the ancient writings seem to correspond to modern and recent Astronomy. There may well have to be something beyond what we understand as ordinary human experience to account for the writings that we have seen. [Professor Armstrong, Scientist works at NASA]

It is difficult to imagine that this type of knowledge was existing at that time, around 1400 years back. May be some of the things they have simple idea about, but do describe those things in great detail is very difficult. So, this is definitely not a simple human knowledge. [Professor Durga Rao]


There's alot more quotations that I had, that's lost now -.- For me, the Science was enough, but I wanted to have no doubts, so I studied deep into the source(Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)) life and it all connected.

 

[Muhaba]

This thread is not to argue whether there are any miracles in the Quran, nor is it to argue whether or not there is a god...

There are really two separate issues. The issue of whether our universe was created by a conscious act, and if it was then also the issue of whether or not this consciousness has sent us instructions (theism) or is non intervening (deism.)

I'll start from the bottom up.

RELIGION​

Why I don't accept a religion

What I observe in the world though is that many people make up many religions, it still happens today - I think Muslims will agree that Mormonism is man made. The technique used is that an individual will claim that god is speaking through them (directly or indirectly) and that on that authority everyone else should listen to them. When asked to present evidence of supernatural intervention they implore people to "believe out of faith" and "to demand proof is wicked and arrogant" - because natural beings cannot provide supernatural evidence.

Keeping in mind that this is the standard strategy by which humans create religion it is therefore impossible for me to believe any religion that came about in a similar fashion. It makes no sense to me that god would create a religion by utilising the exact same techniques of fraudsters.

God always gave his prophets miracles to prove that they were really sent by God. For example the miracles given to Prophet Moses (AS). God also gave Prophet Muhammad (SAW) miracles one of them being the Quran, which is a book no one can imitate. Additionally, the Prophet (SAW) foretold many future events, many of which happened / are happening now.

Islam is also not like other man-made religions like mormonism. Islam is practical unlike mormonism which doesn't allow it's members to use modern stuff, like a car. Islam is also not like satanic / pagan religions that require human sacrifice, etc.

What would it take me to accept a religion?

If I had opened the Quran and the first thing I saw was 299,792,458 I would today be a Muslim. This is the speed of light in a vacuum. Although there are alternative extraordinary explanations as to how this information could have arrived

God told Muhammad
An alien told Muhammad
A time traveller told Muhammad

I wouldn't really see any way of deciding which was the case, but the fact that the rest of the book claimed to be authored by the creator of the universe I think I could give the benefit of the doubt and accept it was from god Apart from knowing the speed of light in a vacuum it would also demonstrate knowledge of the future, because the number is presented in kilometres per hour, a unit of measurement which was not created at the time - so it would be a kind of "two birds with one stone" scenario.

There are scientific facts in the Quran, for example the big bang theory. The Islamic law system also proves that Islam is a religion from God, not from human source, since noone could come up with such a complete and practical law system which is as applicable today as it was 1400 years ago, especially not someone living in a lawless desert community.

GOD​

Why I don't accept there is a god
To determine the cause of something we gather evidence. In nature this is simple as we have many instances from which to gather information, but with the universe we currently only have one to gather data from. We cannot see how this universe started, if it is the first universe, the only universe, and so on.

The answer to the question "How did the universe get here" for me is a resounding "I do not know", and I'd rather have no answer than the wrong answer. Not knowing is acceptable, accepting answers as truth without evidence ("truth without proof") is unacceptable.

For example, it's easy for someone to conclude that the universe was created, but why does this automatically mean it was created by "god"? There is no more or less evidence to suggest the origin of the universe was

One god
Two gods
Lots of gods
Another universe
Energy from some other dimension
etc

The fact that everything in the universe is completely compatible with everything else and there isn't any chaos shows that there is only one God. The fact that the universe is organized shows that there is a God.

And if we say that whatever created it should be named "God" because god is a role rather than a being then we have no more evidence to suggest that

God was a conscious being rather than some natural process that creates universes.
God gave up its own existence in order to create the universe (the ultimate selfless sacrifice)

If God had given up His existence to create the universe, the universe would've fallen apart. It wouldn't be organized. can something be organized all by itself, without someone continuously causing it to be so? what would happen to a library if there were no librarian to take care of it? what happens to a garden when noone takes care of it?

 

[TheRationalizer]

Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with everyone),
Well, I had a nice long reply refuting the Athiest thing and putting in a very good arguement as to why a man couldn't have produced the Quran, then I accidently kicked my wire and that's it. What a shame.

I hate it when that happens!

Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with everyone),
Anyways, if your down the road to Science, here's some encouragement for you -
[Ali Selman Benoist, France, Doctor of Medicine]
[Saifuddin Dirk Walter Mosig]
[Professor Armstrong, Scientist works at NASA]
[Professor Durga Rao]

Those are just appeals to authority. I didn't want to know why some other people chose their current stance

For me, the Science was enough

For me this is what attracted me to the Quran in the first place. I went from "Believe without proof because faith is a virtue" to thinking "Hang on, this makes sense, god WOULD leave prove that religion X is the only one that is not fake".

I read the Quran and the miracles looked quite impressive. At first I was quite convinced, but I felt that I would want to convince others too and in order to do that I had to be able to answer every "Yes but" they might throw at me, so I looked into each one by looking up a bit of history etc. Every miracle claim I looked at fell flat. By this time I was past the "Believe without proof" phase of my life (thanks Quran miracle claimants!) and finding a lack of proof in the Quran ended up being an atheist. Now there's irony for you

Which miracle claim do you find the most convincing? Maybe it is one I am unaware of.

 

[TheRationalizer]

It seems all you're after is scientific discoveries in a book which teachings mankind about faith

Not scientific discoveries, proof. Every man made religion on Earth implores people to believe out of faith alone, and many people fall for it. For example, Mormonism is a faith based religion with millions of followers. All I want is for god to make it objectively clear which religion I should follow....if any.

I highly doubt that, prophet Muhammad split the moon in half when a group of disbelievers asked for a miracle in order for them to accept islam - they still did not believe

I cannot accept that Muhammad split the Moon in half. Approximately 50% of the planet can see the Moon at the same time as the inhabitants of Mecca. If the Moon had been split in half then millions of people would have seen it, not just a few people standing next to Muhammad. This would have included many people from literate countries such as China who have a good recorded history.

Where is all the corroborative evidence?

I think this is far more likely to be something like a solar eclipse, which is why so many people would have dismissed it.

 

[TheRationalizer]

God always gave his prophets miracles to prove that they were really sent by God.

So why do the people of the time deserve proof but not me?

Islam is also not like other man-made religions like mormonism. Islam is practical unlike mormonism which doesn't allow it's members to use modern stuff, like a car

Are you sure? That sounds more like the Amish to me.

There are scientific facts in the Quran, for example the big bang theory.

The big band theory is not in the Quran. The verse which says that the Earth and Heavens were once one but then torn apart is merely different wording for the creation story in the Torah (Genesis 1) which says that at first there was just water and god separated the water into the heavens and the sea and then made land appear in the sea.

The Islamic law system also proves that Islam is a religion from God, not from human source, since noone could come up with such a complete and practical law system which is as applicable today as it was 1400 years ago, especially not someone living in a lawless desert community.

Even if I agreed that Shariah law is flawless (which I don't) it wouldn't be proof of divine origin.

The fact that everything in the universe is completely compatible with everything else and there isn't any chaos shows that there is only one God.

Or two gods which agree with each other 100%.

The fact that the universe is organized shows that there is a God. If God had given up His existence to create the universe, the universe would've fallen apart.

Are you saying that god is incapable of creating a universe which will not fall apart if he isn't there to keep control of it?

 

[Saad17]

The big band theory is not in the Quran. The verse which says that the Earth and Heavens were once one but then torn apart is merely different wording for the creation story in the Torah (Genesis 1) which says that at first there was just water and god separated the water into the heavens and the sea and then made land appear in the sea.

You sounds like you KNOW it is copied off the Torah.

Or two gods which agree with each other 100%.

So whats the difference between the two gods? I mean if a Muslim would claim that Allah is everywhere in the 10-roomed house than that mean there are 10 bodies of Allah in each room but that doesn't mean there are 10 gods. By two gods we mean two different gods.

Are you saying that god is incapable of creating a universe which will not fall apart if he isn't there to keep control of it?

Are you saying that god can't create a universe and live ?

 

[TheRationalizer]

You sounds like you KNOW it is copied off the Torah.

I am saying that anyone at the time who had ever heard the first few sentences of Genesis could have said exactly the same thing.

So whats the difference between the two gods? I mean if a Muslim would claim that Allah is everywhere in the 10-roomed house than that mean there are 10 bodies of Allah in each room but that doesn't mean there are 10 gods. By two gods we mean two different gods.

Yes, there is no reason to look at the universe and say "It MUST be created by ONE god". How would you tell the difference between a universe created by one god and a universe created by two gods which reached an agreement on how it should be made?

Are you saying that god can't create a universe and live ?

No, I am asking how you would tell the difference between a universe which god created and lived, and a universe which god ceased to exist in order to make it. You can't tell the difference just by looking at the universe.