Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Tichmond Rigers]

I'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt that he is really just very ignorant and has never even walked past a single science textbook...

Look, I am not familiar with the big bang theory I will admit, but I study Bachelor of Science (I need it to get to a graduate degree otherwise I would not have done it). So, in terms of science, I know more than what people think I know about it and I know a lot of their theories like natural selection and evolution etc. fairly well.

You are introducing a being, far, far more complex than the universe to be the cause of the universe. That being then is in far more need of a creator (being even more complex), or you give it a pass and abandon your own logic. If this creator doesn't need a creator, then why assume the universe would?

If you acknowledge that it too requires a creator, then what created that creator? What created the creator of the creator. This continues infinitely.

The Creator does not need to be created. I will tell you why. Those who believe that the Creator created everything believe that the Creator created time. Hence, time does not lapse on the Creator. This means that the Creator existed Eternally since time does not lapse on Him. The One Who exists without a beginning does not need another to bring them into existence.

We don't know how the universe came to be, but as above, how did this creator come to be, by chance?

Any allowance you make to allow this creator to exist is only adding an unnecessary level of complexity. If the creator has always existed and thus escapes the requirement of a cause, why not allow the universe this origin?

Because the Universe has attributes that prove it is needy, like occupying place and colour etc. Also, time lapses on the Universe, suggesting that it has a beginning. It changes, and change is a sign of being overpowered. There has to be One Who attributed them with those attributes and has Power over it.

Whereas God does not have those attributes. God is not a body, does not need a place in order to exist and does not have a limit. God is not overpowered and does not change. This is why those that believe in a "Sky-God" are wrong.

Science has not yet explained many things, in this you are correct. So, the things that science has explained - before they were explained, many had a religious or supernatural 'explanation'. What would you say to a person who insisted that diseases are caused by evil spirits and demons, rather than germs?

I believe in the existence of intellectual creatures other than humans. But for the purpose of this discussion, I will not comment on this because my main purpose is to talk about the belief in God and not demons and germs.

By 'mentally possible' you mean 'It's a thought I can have', right? To be completely honest, this part sounds like you're really, really high. (Not that there's anything wrong with that).

It is still a fact. The world could have had different norms, but does not

"X is Y, because god made it that way - no further explanation needed" - do you really find this a satisfying answer?

I understand that you're a Muslim. The Islamic world used to be at the forefront of scientific discovery and progress. Please be aware that those who came before you were not satisfied with 'God did it' as the answer to everything.

Just letting you know, you need not abandon science and embrace ignorance...

Yes, I do find it a satisfying answer. Why? because I believe that God is attributed with Will. What I mean by that is that I believe God has the ability to do whatever He Wills. And I believe that there is a wisdom behind the creation of everything. So I find this a satisfying answer.

I understand that you're a Muslim. The Islamic world used to be at the forefront of scientific discovery and progress. Please be aware that those who came before you were not satisfied with 'God did it' as the answer to everything.

Just letting you know, you need not abandon science and embrace ignorance...

Yes, they were at the forefront of scientific discovery. But none of them believed that God didn't exist.

We are taught that there is a cure for all diseases except death and old age. Hence, you would find Muslims eager to find cures. We are taught to ponder on the creations around us. You will find Muslims captivated by the processes of life and how things work and will observe. Hence, you will find them having taken part in past scientific discovery.

 

[Niximus]

Look, I am not familiar with the big bang theory I will admit, but I study Bachelor of Science (I need it to get to a graduate degree otherwise I would not have done it). So, in terms of science, I know more than what people think I know about it and I know a lot of their theories like natural selection and evolution etc. fairly well.

What subjects have you achieved a passing grade in?

The Creator does not need to be created. I will tell you why. Those who believe that the Creator created everything believe that the Creator created time. Hence, time does not lapse on the Creator. This means that the Creator existed Eternally since time does not lapse on Him. The One Who exists without a beginning does not need another to bring them into existence.

Because the Universe has attributes that prove it is needy, like occupying place and colour etc. Also, time lapses on the Universe, suggesting that it has a beginning. It changes, and change is a sign of being overpowered. There has to be One Who attributed them with those attributes and has Power over it.

Whereas God does not have those attributes. God is not a body, does not need a place in order to exist and does not have a limit. God is not overpowered and does not change. This is why those that believe in a "Sky-God" are wrong.

I'm not going to debate this. You claim to have evidence to support your beliefs, the above is not evidence. You simply give this creator the ability to do whatever you need them to do and suddenly everything is solved.

I cannot present evidence to counter a position that is not based on evidence.

I believe in the existence of intellectual creatures other than humans. But for the purpose of this discussion, I will not comment on this because my main purpose is to talk about the belief in God and not demons and germs.

Which conveniently misses the point entirely, congratulations.

It is still a fact. The world could have had different norms, but does not

Very true...but evidence of absolutely nothing.

Richmond could have won a flag in the last 30 years, but they haven't...therefore god hates the tigers? Non sequitur much?

Yes, I do find it a satisfying answer. Why? because I believe that God is attributed with Will. What I mean by that is that I believe God has the ability to do whatever He Wills. And I believe that there is a wisdom behind the creation of everything. So I find this a satisfying answer.

Feel free to believe that, but again it is evidence of nothing.

Yes, they were at the forefront of scientific discovery. But none of them believed that God didn't exist.

We are taught that there is a cure for all diseases except death and old age. Hence, you would find Muslims eager to find cures. We are taught to ponder on the creations around us. You will find Muslims captivated by the processes of life and how things work and will observe. Hence, you will find them having taken part in past scientific discovery.

They did believe in god, yes. What they also did though was let what they learned from science tell them about their god and not the other way around.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Because the Universe has attributes that prove it is needy, like occupying place and colour etc.

I never would have thought I'd read such gibberish from someone purporting to be studying science at a tertiary level.

"Colour"... seriously man... surely you've studied the principles of light/optics.

As for the stuff about "time" - you are giving God special treatment again when you could apply the same principles to the universe itself.

You're just cramming God into the gaps in your understanding, and there appears to be a lot of gaps. Let's hope you pay attention in your lectures.

 

[Niximus]

Let's hope you pay attention in your lectures.

First year Bio - Where does life come from?
God made it!

Second year - How did god make life?
He just did because he can do that sort of thing!

Third year - Why did god make life?
This is not for you to know!

Masters - What else is there to know?
Absolutely nothing, we have all the answers!

PhD - Research more about life.
Actually, don't ******* bother!

Congratulations Doctor.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Thank god he isn't studying surgery or engineering, lest he find some passage in the Quran he interprets as prohibiting antiseptics or support beams on bridges.

With his stunning disregard for facts and the scientific method, at least we can rest safely in the knowledge that no employer in his field will touch him with a 40 foot pole, and society will be insulated from whatever damage he may have wrought but for his inevitable unemployment.

 

[Catastic82]

Thank god he isn't studying surgery or engineering, lest he find some passage in the Quran he interprets as prohibiting antiseptics or support beams on bridges.

With his stunning disregard for facts and the scientific method, at least we can rest safely in the knowledge that no employer in his field will touch him with a 40 foot pole, and society will be insulated from whatever damage he may have wrought but for his inevitable unemployment.

EFC will be knocking on his door

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

I never would have thought I'd read such gibberish from someone purporting to be studying science at a tertiary level.

"Colour"... seriously man... surely you've studied the principles of light/optics.

As for the stuff about "time" - you are giving God special treatment again when you could apply the same principles to the universe itself.

You're just cramming God into the gaps in your understanding, and there appears to be a lot of gaps. Let's hope you pay attention in your lectures.

I study science at a tertiary level and have an idea on how stupid and baseless some theories are. But I am not here to discuss those theories

I have already stated why the Universe is not eternal. The universe has similarities to us (it has a shape, and occupies space etc.) so it must have a beginning like we do. We are not eternal. The one who is eternal does not have the same attributes as anything that has a beginning, like us. The Universe is like us in that it occupies place just like we do, not in the sense that it physically looks like us in shape etc if you get what I mean.

And time does lapse on the Universe. It is filled with change as time lapses on it. We observe this every day. There must be one who is control of that.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I study science at a tertiary level and have an idea on how stupid and baseless some theories are. But I am not here to discuss those theories

I have already stated why the Universe is not eternal. The universe has similarities to us (it has a shape, and occupies space etc.) so it must have a beginning like we do. We are not eternal. The one who is eternal does not have the same attributes as anything that has a beginning, like us. The Universe is like us in that it occupies place just like we do, not in the sense that it physically looks like us in shape etc if you get what I mean.

And time does lapse on the Universe. It is filled with change as time lapses on it. We observe this every day. There must be one who is control of that.

That last sentence is textbook you... "I don't understand, therefore God".

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

What subjects have you achieved a passing grade in?

Just because I study something does not mean that I believe in it. And in order to pass something I do not have to take it as my belief. I know the theories, which is why I have passed my Units (and received High Distinctions) in many of them. But I do not take it as my convictions. I am just doing this degree to get into a graduate degree that I wish to get into.

I'm not going to debate this. You claim to have evidence to support your beliefs, the above is not evidence. You simply give this creator the ability to do whatever you need them to do and suddenly everything is solved.


I cannot present evidence to counter a position that is not based on evidence.

There is something called the "sound mind". Use it to understand what I am saying

Very true...but evidence of absolutely nothing.

Richmond could have won a flag in the last 30 years, but they haven't...therefore god hates the tigers? Non sequitur much?

They could have won a flag in 30 years, but didn't. That isn't evidence to say that "God hates Richmond" like what you said. It is simply that if God Willed for something to happen, it will happen and if God Willed for something to not happen, it does not happen. It is His creation, and He does whatever He Willed. This is our belief.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Hehe. The funny thing is, even if he can come up with a sound philosophical argument for the existence of the creator (and spouting the widely recognised as pissweak teleological argument wont cut it), I'd love to see him justify his actual reasoning for his choice of God.

You can wade around in the philosophical shallows but no amount of reason or even faux-reason can make even the most rudimentary case for...

- proving that your particular god (Allah) is the real one (as opposed to thousands of other God characters concocted by humanity in our history)
- proving that he/she/it cares about our mortal affairs
- proving that you know his arbitrary rules for living (how you should worship, how many slaves you can own, what you should wear, what you can eat, who you can sleep with, what orifice you can put it in etc).

To do that, you have to abandon anything even resembling what is already a flimsy attempt at logic and reason. To quote the great Christopher Hitchens, when it comes to justifying the existence of your particular brand of God... "all your work is still ahead of you".

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

That last sentence is textbook you... "I don't understand, therefore God".

I do understand, unlike you. You think that I don't understand and therefore mention God, but you fail to realise the process of intellectual reasoning that I am providing you with to get to my final point.

I use as my evidence what you and I observe every day. We can obviously see that change occurs when one overpowers the other. Wind overpowers the ball, so the ball changes from its position and is brought into motion. This is evidence that we see. Now, the Universe undergoes many changes every day (keep in mind the analogy of change that I used). This is an indication of what? An indication that this Universe is controlled by a Creator.

Also, the UNIVERSE is like us in that it occupies SPACE and undergoes CHANGE. We know that we all have a beginning. Since the UNIVERSE is LIKE us, it also must have a BEGINNING.

After this, it is either you know what I am saying and are being stubborn and still claiming that I am using the 'i don't understand therefore God' gateway for my belief, or you truly do not understand, which would be worrying. Obviously I am believing with evidence. It is not the "scientific" evidence that you lot are normally accustomed to, but being picky with the type of evidence you use got you to the belief that you are at now.

 

[Niximus]

Well, I tried. This one's beyond help.

 

[Catastic82]

I do understand, unlike you. You think that I don't understand and therefore mention God, but you fail to realise the process of intellectual reasoning that I am providing you with to get to my final point.

I use as my evidence what you and I observe every day. We can obviously see that change occurs when one overpowers the other. Wind overpowers the ball, so the ball changes from its position and is brought into motion. This is evidence that we see. Now, the Universe undergoes many changes every day (keep in mind the analogy of change that I used). This is an indication of what? An indication that this Universe is controlled by a Creator.

Also, the UNIVERSE is like us in that it occupies SPACE and undergoes CHANGE. We know that we all have a beginning. Since the UNIVERSE is LIKE us, it also must have a BEGINNING.

After this, it is either you know what I am saying and are being stubborn and still claiming that I am using the 'i don't understand therefore God' gateway for my belief, or you truly do not understand, which would be worrying. Obviously I am believing with evidence. It is not the "scientific" evidence that you lot are normally accustomed to, but being picky with the type of evidence you use got you to the belief that you are at now.

The reason why scientific evidence is values is because it can be tested and disproven/proven, your belief evidence can not be taken to the same standards.

Not trying to change your belief system but your reasonings are pretty poor and you might as well just say you have fair instead of justifying it in a scientific manner.

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

The reason why scientific evidence is values is because it can be tested and disproven/proven, your belief evidence can not be taken to the same standards.

Not trying to change your belief system but your reasonings are pretty poor and you might as well just say you have fair instead of justifying it in a scientific manner.

I am not trying to justify what I believe "scientifically". Just because I am using the world around me as evidence does not mean that I am explaining things in a scientific manner.

I believe that science is very limiting in terms of the types of evidence it uses for its theories. I use the word "evidence" in this sentence because of my conviction that it omits valid types of evidences.

I say this because there is such a thing as intellectual evidence and performed evidence, such as miracles that defy nature that performed by humans who claim to be Messengers of God. Science does not use either of these, yet they are also evidence. I have already talked about the first, so I will explain what I mean with the latter type of evidence.

If a person comes along and states that they are a Messenger of God, people would want to see evidence. Sometimes, they are challenged to perform something extraordinary. An example would be the people challenging a person who claims to be a Messenger of God to bring out a live camel from a rock if he is truthful in his claim. If he is able to bring a live camel out of that rock, then he is truthful in his claim. This scenario would then become irrefutable evidence and there is then evidence that there is indeed a Creator. This miracle would obviously need to be in-opposable and someone with an opposing claim should also not be able to discredit or replicate this.
Hence, it is then that we call it irrefutable evidence.

There are many miracles documented from Messengers in the past. What makes some of the famous ones authentic is that they are narrated from many sources and have a strong chain. If one person walks out of a building and says that the building is on fire, you may ignore it. But if many people, one after the other, walks out of that same building say the same thing in such a way that they could not all have conspired to fool you, then this is evidence even if you yourself did not see the fire. Likewise, these miracles were documented and related by many people to the extent that they could not all have come together and conspired to fool everyone. Hence, I should in fact be able to relate a miracle and use that as evidence for my claim. But science picks and chooses what it uses as its evidence and leaves out types evidences that are indeed valid.

My whole point is, the evidence that I come with may not follow what science claims to be evidence, but it does not mean that it is weak evidence. (I know I am quoting you, but most of this post is not only to you, but to the rest of them out here).

 

[Niximus]

TIL - every urban legend email my mum forwards must be true.

 

[Roylion]

I believe that science is very limiting in terms of the types of evidence it uses for its theories. I use the word "evidence" in this sentence because of my conviction that it omits valid types of evidences.

I don't believe so. Robust, empirical evidence collected via the scientific method needs to be the way the probability of the existence of a phenomena, including so-called "miracles", is determined.

I say this because there is such a thing as intellectual evidence and performed evidence, such as miracles that defy nature that performed by humans who claim to be Messengers of God. Science does not use either of these, yet they are also evidence.

Not particularly good evidence. Certainly not robust evidence. Belief in "miracles" appear to be more articles of faith.

There are many miracles documented from Messengers in the past.

Such as? And documented by who? Documented when?

What makes some of the famous ones authentic is that they are narrated from many sources and have a strong chain.

Narrated by who? Narrated when?

Likewise, these miracles were documented and related by many people to the extent that they could not all have come together and conspired to fool everyone. Hence, I should in fact be able to relate a miracle and use that as evidence for my claim.

Are you suggesting that I could relate the story of a 'miracle' formed solely from my own imagination and that because it was repeated by others, that there is solid evidence for said miracle actually occurring?

But science picks and chooses what it uses as its evidence

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning.

My whole point is, the evidence that I come with may not follow what science claims to be evidence, but it does not mean that it is weak evidence.

In my view, it is far weaker evidence.

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

I don't believe so. Robust, empirical evidence collected via the scientific method needs to be the way the probability of the existence of a phenomena, including so-called "miracles", is determined.

But miracles defy nature, so would differ from what is normally observed with scientists. Hence, science can explain what normally occurs, but cannot explain the occurrence of what normally does not. An example would be the flowing of water from between the fingers of the Prophet that was observed over a thousand years ago. This occurrence cannot be explained by science because it is not something that would normally occur.

Not particularly good evidence. Certainly not robust evidence. Beleif in "miracles" appear to be more articles of faith.

It is through observation. For example, there are miracles that we can observe today. An example would be the prophecy of Prophet MuHammad for instance. He has foretold occurrences that have happened after he died. How do we know that he foretold this? Through documentation.

He has told his companions in one instance that there will be sheppards who build high rise buildings. At the time, among the sheppards were the Bediouns, who were desert dwellers. In the modern days, who are among the Bediouns? The people of UAE. And what are they known for? Building high rise buildings. If you were to tell the people 1,400 years ago that there would be people building high rise buildings in a desert, they would be stumped. So, what did people do? Document this and pass it on to the next generation to see if this will eventuate. And has it? Yes.

Another one he foretold was the widespread of fornication. We all know that non-Muslims and Muslims alike were strict with only having sex after marriage in the past. Even 100 years ago, fornication was not prevalent amongst society, let alone 1,400 years ago. So, he said that this will happen and it did. I am using this as evidence because there were many people who passed this on who lived at a time where they did not observe this occurring. It is only now that we receive this documentation and are able to prove that it did occur. Others that were foretold was the fatness in people, and it is no secret that this is widespread now. There are other things.

This is a miracle, because he could not have foretold all of this by mere guessing. At the time he mentioned all of this, there was no sign at all that this was going to occur at all, yet we are witnesses to these things actually happening. So, how did he know all of this happened? He must have been correct when he says that he received Revelation from God.

Such as? And documented by who? Documented when?

From narrations of the Companions of the Prophet, and the scholars that came after. The sayings of the Prophet is a complete science in itself (science here does not mean the science that we normally refer to as science nowadays, but rather a systematically organised body of knowledge). The West does not have access to these, but could have if they sought it. It is through this route that we know its occurrence. So, what follows is that anything he comes with is also true.

There are certain traits that Messengers of God have. They are trustworthy and tell the truth before and after they receive revelation. Why? Because if they told even a single lie, they would not be trustworthy in anything that they were to claim because they may also have lied then.
Hence, the reason why they have such a big following is because those people then who knew Prophet MuHammad (peace be upon him), or Jesus (peace be upon him), knew that they were not liars. Not only that, they also had miracles to back them up. The evidence got to a point that those who reject them are blameworthy for doing so. And this is what is documented and passed on.

Narrated by who? Narrated when?

As said above. The narrations and the time they were narrated and the events surrounding it are documented in books of scholars who specialise in this. It is a matter of seeking this knowledge for the individual. I am not going to provide you with these chains today, because that would be jumping a step ahead. A step earlier is first bringing to people's attention that this is a valid evidence in the first place.

Are you suggesting that I could relate the story of a 'miracle' formed solely from my own imagination and that because it was repeated by others, that there is solid evidence for said miracle actually occurring?

No. That which has only one route would be considered a weak narration. Generally, the famous ones are mentioned from many different sources, so are therefore considered to be strong.

A present day example would be if one person mentioned that they have seen a comet for instance. If no one else mentions this, people would generally ignore this. However, if many people have mentioned the same thing (that they have seen a comet) and use the same description to describe it AND it is reported in such a way that they could not have all conspired to fool others, then this is considered solid evidence that there was a comet, and it would be unreasonable to suggest otherwise EVEN THOUGH you haven't seen the comet yourself. This is how miracles are reported. The famous ones are those that have a strong chain and many sources.

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning.

But it rejects that which it cannot disprove. The sole fact that it rejects that which it cannot disprove shows something. It shows that it is limited. It cannot disprove an extraordinary occurrence for instance. In order to find out the truth behind this extraordinary occurrence, there needs to be other types of evidences that should be used, because the whole basis of why something is called extraordinary is that it is different from the norm. What science observes is only what is from the norm and focuses on that. Hence, it is limited. Any evidence that it cannot disprove, it rejects, and what it can disprove, it either rejects or accepts

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

I don't believe so. Robust, empirical evidence collected via the scientific method needs to be the way the probability of the existence of a phenomena, including so-called "miracles", is determined.

But miracles defy nature, so would differ from what is normally observed with scientists. Hence, science can explain what normally occurs, but cannot explain the occurrence of what normally does not. An example would be the flowing of water from between the fingers of the Prophet that was observed over a thousand years ago. This occurrence cannot be explained by science because it is not something that would normally occur.

Not particularly good evidence. Certainly not robust evidence. Beleif in "miracles" appear to be more articles of faith.

It is through observation. For example, there are miracles that we can observe today. An example would be the prophecy of Prophet MuHammad for instance. He has foretold occurrences that have happened after he died. How do we know that he foretold this? Through documentation.

He has told his companions in one instance that there will be sheppards who build high rise buildings. At the time, among the sheppards were the Bediouns, who were desert dwellers. In the modern days, who are among the Bediouns? The people of UAE. And what are they known for? Building high rise buildings. If you were to tell the people 1,400 years ago that there would be people building high rise buildings in a desert, they would be stumped. So, what did people do? Document this and pass it on to the next generation to see if this will eventuate. And has it? Yes.

Another one he foretold was the widespread of fornication. We all know that non-Muslims and Muslims alike were strict with only having sex after marriage in the past. Even 100 years ago, fornication was not prevalent amongst society, let alone 1,400 years ago. So, he said that this will happen and it did. I am using this as evidence because there were many people who passed this on who lived at a time where they did not observe this occurring. It is only now that we receive this documentation and are able to prove that it did occur. Others that were foretold was the fatness in people, and it is no secret that this is widespread now. There are other things.

This is a miracle, because he could not have foretold all of this by mere guessing. At the time he mentioned all of this, there was no sign at all that this was going to occur at all, yet we are witnesses to these things actually happening. So, how did he know all of this happened? He must have been correct when he says that he received Revelation from God.

Such as? And documented by who? Documented when?

From narrations of the Companions of the Prophet, and the scholars that came after. The sayings of the Prophet is a complete science in itself (science here does not mean the science that we normally refer to as science nowadays, but rather a systematically organised body of knowledge). The West does not have access to these, but could have if they sought it. It is through this route that we know its occurrence. So, what follows is that anything he comes with is also true.

There are certain traits that Messengers of God have. They are trustworthy and tell the truth before and after they receive revelation. Why? Because if they told even a single lie, they would not be trustworthy in anything that they were to claim because they may also have lied then.
Hence, the reason why they have such a big following is because those people then who knew Prophet MuHammad (peace be upon him), or Jesus (peace be upon him), knew that they were not liars. Not only that, they also had miracles to back them up. The evidence got to a point that those who reject them are blameworthy for doing so. And this is what is documented and passed on.

Narrated by who? Narrated when?

As said above. The narrations and the time they were narrated and the events surrounding it are documented in books of scholars who specialise in this. It is a matter of seeking this knowledge for the individual. I am not going to provide you with these chains today, because that would be jumping a step ahead. A step earlier is first bringing to people's attention that this is a valid evidence in the first place.

Are you suggesting that I could relate the story of a 'miracle' formed solely from my own imagination and that because it was repeated by others, that there is solid evidence for said miracle actually occurring?

No. That which has only one route would be considered a weak narration. Generally, the famous ones are mentioned from many different sources, so are therefore considered to be strong.

A present day example would be if one person mentioned that they have seen a comet for instance. If no one else mentions this, people would generally ignore this. However, if many people have mentioned the same thing (that they have seen a comet) and use the same description to describe it AND it is reported in such a way that they could not have all conspired to fool others, then this is considered solid evidence that there was a comet, and it would be unreasonable to suggest otherwise EVEN THOUGH you haven't seen the comet yourself. This is how miracles are reported. The famous ones are those that have a strong chain and many sources.

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning.

But it rejects that which it cannot disprove. The sole fact that it rejects that which it cannot disprove shows something. It shows that it is limited. It cannot disprove an extraordinary occurrence for instance. In order to find out the truth behind this extraordinary occurrence, there needs to be other types of evidences that should be used, because the whole basis of why something is called extraordinary is that it is different from the norm. What science observes is only what is from the norm and focuses on that. Hence, it is limited. Any evidence that it cannot disprove, it rejects, and what it can disprove, it either rejects or accepts

 

[Hollow Knight]

Gotta be a troll.

 

[skilts]

In my view, it is far weaker evidence.

Still boxing on I see, Roylion. You are indefatigable. As has been mentioned earlier, this one appears to be beyond redemption. That he is prepared to do a degree in a subject he despises, to do another degree in a discipline which is also at odds with his beliefs, displays a sad misinterpretation of a life unlikely to be consciously lived with any kind of ruthless introspection. Knowing you as I do, I anticipate none of what I've written here will change your M.O. As a matter of interest, have you ever just given up on a student?

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

Hehe. The funny thing is, even if he can come up with a sound philosophical argument for the existence of the creator (and spouting the widely recognised as pissweak teleological argument wont cut it), I'd love to see him justify his actual reasoning for his choice of God.

You can wade around in the philosophical shallows but no amount of reason or even faux-reason can make even the most rudimentary case for...

- proving that your particular god (Allah) is the real one (as opposed to thousands of other God characters concocted by humanity in our history)
- proving that he/she/it cares about our mortal affairs
- proving that you know his arbitrary rules for living (how you should worship, how many slaves you can own, what you should wear, what you can eat, who you can sleep with, what orifice you can put it in etc).

To do that, you have to abandon anything even resembling what is already a flimsy attempt at logic and reason. To quote the great Christopher Hitchens, when it comes to justifying the existence of your particular brand of God... "all your work is still ahead of you".

All you are saying in this post is pretty much "Your argument is weak", yet you do not even attempt to counteract my arguments.

Anyways, I can prove that the belief of Islam is the true Religion. No other Religion for starters mentions the intellectual evidences that I have provided, and rather attribute God with the attributes of the creations. I will warn you though, you need to read this slowly because this is intellectually deep and you may not be able to follow if you do not pay close attention.

It is impossible for the one who is attributed with Godhood to have the attributes of the creation, such as a body, limbs, size, shape, and other characteristics like it, because those are created and have a beginning. If one were to say that God is physically in the sky, they would be saying that God occupies space and has a limit. Therefore, they would be saying that God is a body, because bodies are the ones that are limited. All what we see here now are bodies. There are two types of bodies:

1. The tangible body (such as us and the rocks)
2. The intangible body (such as light)

Light is a body because it has a limit. If I were to turn on a light in my house for instance, the light would not illuminate everywhere. It would radiate to a point, and beyond that it doesn't go further. So in this definition of body, it is that which has a physical limit, whether it is tangible or intangible.

Hence, if one says that God is in the sky, they are saying that God is a body. A body would need another to specify limits for it, so would be created. Hence, the ones that other Religion call "God" is not really a God. God is attributed with the power to bring things from non-existence into existence. This is what we call "create". By this definition of creating, no human does this because we make things using material around us. More specifically, no body does this.



If they claim God has the same attributes as the creation, and the creation have a beginning (meaning they have a creator), then they would be claiming that God also has a beginning (and also has a creator). The One we call God is Eternal, and is not created. The Christians as an example claim that God is in the sky. If God created the sky, they must be saying that God changed (from the state of NOT being in the sky to the state of being in the sky). When does change occur? When one overpowers the other. I gave this example before, but will give the example again.

Lets just say that there is a ball that is stationary on a levelled surface. Then, wind comes along. Because of this wind, the ball moves and starts rolling. The ball changed from stationary to moving and it has been displaced. This occured because the wind overpowered the ball, hence why the ball changed. So, if someone says that God created everything and changed in order to inhabit the sky, they are saying that God was overpowered. This means that there is one that controls God, and it means that whatever they claim to be God is in actual fact not God. Hence, they do not believe in God correctly.

The only Religion that clears God from resembling the creations is Islam.

Also, there are documented miracles (which its detail I mentioned in a previous post, so read that before you read the next part) that prove the truthfulness of a man named MuHammad that said that he was a Messenger of God. These miracles supported his claim that he was indeed a Messenger of God, and confirm that the Qur'aan is truly the Kalaam (Speech) of God. In the Qur'aan, it mentions about other Prophets like him and their story, including Jesus and Moses. If the Qur'aan is truly the Kalaam (speech) of God, it would obviously mean that what is mentioned in it would be true. Hence, if it mentions that Jesus and Moses came with what MuHammad came with, it means that they both also came with what the Muslims believe in now like MuHammad did.

Therefore, Jesus is not the son of God, but rather a Messenger. Going back to the intellectual evidence, an attribute of having a son is not an attribute that can be attributed to God, because that entails resembling God to the creations, which leads to believing that He has a creator. Also, it is claiming that God changed from the state of having no offspring to having offspring, and I already mentioned earlier what that leads to. On top of that, we know that the scriptures revealed to Jesus was in the Armaic language, and the earliest version of the Bible that the Christians use nowadays is in Greek. Obviously, this means that the original scriptures are not available, so the entire modern-day Bible does not have an authentic chain of narration. Hence, nothing mentioned in the Bible can be proved as authentic. Someone could have come along and changed matters in the Bible when translating it from Armaic to the Greek, and that is what appears to be the case because of the contradictions that it contains, and a true book would not contain contradictions.

This is a slight inside into how I know Islam is the true Religion. If I start going through every detail on how the other Religions are wrong, I would be sitting here for a while. Hence, I will leave it at this insight and all I have to say is that I do have evidence for my belief

 

[Hollow Knight]

Pseudo-philosophical brainwashed babble, regardless of whether you pre-emptively proclaim it otherwise. Your "pay attention because this is deep" disclaimer was a pretty transparent attempt at a smokescreen as you knew you were about to lay down some absolute gibberish poorly disguised as profundity.

Even respected Islamic theologians would cringe at that utter rot. Would not look out of place scrawled on the wall of a sanitarium in excrement.

Wordy, but nothing under the surface. To even attempt to deconstruct that would be affording it a level of respect it hasn't come close to earning.

Cliff's notes: you're literally insane and in retrospect I feel a bit bad for unwittingly prodding your psychoses.

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

Pseudo-philosophical brainwashed babble, regardless of whether you pre-emptively proclaim it otherwise. Your "pay attention because this is deep" disclaimer was a pretty transparent attempt at a smokescreen as you knew you were about to lay down some absolute gibberish poorly disguised as profundity.

I mention it to be deep because one needs to pay attention to what is written in order to understand what I am saying. You will not understand if you just gloss over it and refrain from pondering about it. It was not an attempt to smokescreen and put on other types of tricks. Perhaps I should have left the word "deep" out and say what I said just then instead.

Even respected Islamic theologians would cringe at that utter rot. Would not look out of place scrawled on the wall of a sanitarium in excrement.

This is what Muslims believe. If there is someone who says they are Muslim and claims that there is no God, they are not Muslim - even if they are Middle Eastern or claim to be Muslim. Those who are not Muslim are therefore not "Islamic theologists". Hence, there will be no Islamic scholar cringing at what I said. Why? because they would also believe the same as I do. Moreover, they publicize this belief in their books.

Wordy, but nothing under the surface. To even attempt to deconstruct that would be affording it a level of respect it hasn't come close to earning.

Ironically, your entire post is very wordy, but mostly contains insults. Your post is therefore shallow. The truth though is that it is your understanding of my post that is shallow, and not my post.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Word salad.

No point arguing with someone who makes a conclusion and then picks and chooses and distorts facts to suit it.

Intellectual dishonesty. Have your faith, but don't try to delude yourself that you arrived there by a process of honest inquiry.

 

[Pie eyed]

No atheist can discredit the belief that this Universe and what is in it has a Creator. The truth is, they would not accept that something as simple as a writing came from nowhere but accept that a being and system more complex than that comes out of nowhere. Does not make sense

Who made the creator?

(head explodes silently....)