:-)

Charlie,
I'm not sure whether you are aware or are acting like you're not aware of it, but you have already disrespected us so many times. It is an absolute basic understanding that when you talk with people that believe in God, you talk with respect to their God as well even if you disagree with their views or don't believe in their God. You have to understand that any kind of mocking is not acceptable and greatly offends every single Muslim in this forum. You refused to apologize for it too when both Ibn Alsunnah and I have made it clear to you that you are disrespecting us the way you speak. You have also made man incorrect comments about our intentions

No, sorry it's not possible for people to be that stupid although 97% of people still believe. What a nice introduction.
Suggested alternative: I would like to understand your perspective as I'm not convinced that there is God.
No we don't see that. or are you saying that everyone who believes in God has a mind equivilant to a kid's mind?.
Suggested alternative: Can you explain to me how you think he created the world out of nothing? because I can't understand it
Yes only stupid people that go to no school talk like that right
suggested alternative: sorry but I think I disagree with what you're saying.
Are you trying to mock at Quran or look funny? Extremly offending
suggested alternative: just don't make the entire statement.

NO NOT FUN!! Most disrespectful and offending remark in your entire conversations.
suggested alternative: What's your perspective on how God manages who will be born or not?

Don't show me smily faces right after making fun of my God. extremly offending
suggested alternative: How can God in your perspective handle so many things in the world?

?
disrespectful.
Suggested alternative: I disagree with your logic.

no that's not why, so don't assume anything about intentions again. It's because it was truly agressive and sarcastic and you should have apologized for it. Or do you have a problem taking responsibility for your own actions?

so you don't like that ha? Learn not to do it to others!

Don't make assuptions on our intentions because we always to try to give benefit of the doubt.
suggested alternative: it does not make sense to me. I see this to be impossible.

Again don't make assumptions on our intentions.

precisely, without respect, there is no way to have a good conversation. That's why I was not able to even start a conversation with you.

Everyone here knows that we limit conversations to organize them. if you don't want to believe that because you want to ,then we can't help it.

By the way, I assure you that every muslim here truely don't want to live if life has no higher meaning. Does that assure you something else that you have suspected from the begining?

Charlie, your apology is accepted, and we are in turn sorry if we hurt your feelings as it is not the intention of our comments either. With mutual respect we can certainly proceed but any comments like the one's above will certainly be a problem for all of us.
Furthermore, don't simply state statements about intentions because they are simply most of the time wrong and won't help the conversation. You obviously don't like me to simply say: "you're an atheist because you don't want to be told by someone what to do or what not to do". If that was my personal view, then I'll keep it to myself since it doesn't help the debate and can only hurt your feelings.
You need to truly understand that we don't just believe in God... end of story. God to us is more important than ourselves, our families, our lives, and that's why you read some comments about how we consider this life not worthy of anything without the meaning of God.
Don't tell me if you think this is being close minded, because we truely think the same for people like you. To us, God's existance is even out of the question like you're trying to deny something I "see" and "touch". If that's not the case for you unfortunately, then realize that you should not make any mocking comments about God... at least not here.
Also as you discuss with us, don't assume that we're dying to convince you of God. Yes we should deliver the message and would like you to accept it so you have a happy life, but you need to understand that we already have convictions just like you do. You obviously think you are right, but so do we. So when we talk to each other, we don't talk as if I'm the only person who's correct in the world and everyone else is wrong. That's simply the definition of arrogance.
We can respect each other and exchange our views of the world. You are here not to show us how stupid we are, but to explore how we think, just like we would like to see how you think.
Just like you're sure there is no God, we are sure there is God. Just like you might personally think we have a problem in the way we think, we also think you have a problem in the way you think.
From all your comments, I read, it seems to me that you are too self-centered (again personal view that I wouldn't state in a debate in case it offends you)>
FYI, these expectations I have mentioned are not my personal expectations, they're the expectations for everyone in this forum including atheists that come and discuss with us. We did have atheists that made comments like the ones you did before, we simply blocked their account. They're arab so we had a better understanding of how they think and what they mean by their comments. We already have given you the benefit of the doubt with your first few comments, and it was the main reason why I jumped in to the discussion. If you read my very first post you will see that I was trying to say: stop giving us opinionated comments (that already hurts our feelings and offends us), and let's talk debate and logic.
Anyways, now you know the rules I hope, and any additional disrespect will not be tolerated.
With this in mind, if you would like me to be part of this debate, I will be glad to. If not, you can simply state that, and I will pull out of it, while you can simply continue with the rest of the brothers.

Hi Charlie

Thank you for your comments

Going back to the first statement

1- Nothingness is the opposite of being as a whole.

Here is a clarification on the term Nothingness as you requested to prove to you that I am not plying with words and hopping that you do the same.

Nothingness: is the absence of all beings. Nothingness is not the absence of all beings in empty space. Because empty space, is somethingness. Nothingness is the absence of what we call space. So nothingness is dimensionlessness

So if there is an atom, then nothingness cannot exist, because nothingness means no atom. Remember somethingness excludes nothingness, the two cannot exist side by side, it is either one or the other. The definition of a each is the absence of the other i.e. The absence of somethingness is nothingness, and the absence of nothingness is the somethingness. So the lack of existence of nothingness is therefore a necessity.(quote)

And here is also a clarification on the term being as a whole:

Being and sub-beings Man wants to know Reality. Reality consists of all/everything that exists and not necessarily confined to the empirical world. However, since we are part of the universe, we are led to think of galaxies, stars, planets, mountains, ourselves etc,. as existing and therefore we mistakenly treat them as beings, when in fact these are not beings, but they are constituent parts of a being, namely the universe. All these and the like, precisely speaking, are sub-beings and not beings. Once this distinction is borne in mind then we only need to focus on beings because sub-beings would be implicitly included in the discussion. Failure to keep this distinction inevitably leads to treating all that exists as sub-beings i.e., the universe is the only being. Lots of the confusions resulted from the lack of the distinction between, beings and sub-beings. If the world/universe were the only being then it would be equal to Reality but if God exists besides the universe then Reality would consist of the two together. .(quote)

Our goal is to know Reality in its broad sense. We need to have a conception and not a misconception of Reality .



2- Nothingness does not exist

It is the first analytical statement that is known a priori

(non-being is necessarily mental and impossibly real ) is a necessity

The truth and the falsity of statements depend on the relation between its subject and its predicate. Since Reality is one there should be only two types of relations: necessary and impossible. If the predicate of the statement is implied in the meaning of its subject then the relation would be one of necessity otherwise it would be one of impossibility



You said in your reply :

What Ibn Alsunnah can prove in best case is that there must be some explanation for the missing link in his chain. Nothing else. This link could be a god, but could also be any kind of abnormal behavior of universe due to the extreme conditions that universe obviously was in at the time for BB.



In my opinion what is wrong in the discussion is that:

when the inquiry is about existence, beginning with a concept entails an inconsistency i.e., claim of knowledge the nature of what may not exist! Beginning the inquiry with the concept ‘God’ prematurely implies awareness of all the attached information about a being [such as Creator, Omniscient, Omnipotent and Perfect] the existence of which is yet to be determined!

Questions such as “does God exist?”, therefore, are very far fetching. Unless we know that God exists we should not have the concept in the mind nor the label in our terminology. The right beginning is to seek to determine whether a being other than the universe exists or not? In other words, is the universe the only being or is there, at least, another being besides the universe?

With respect to God’s existence, there are two types of arguments: religious and philosophical. Essentially speaking, there is no difference between the two. What lies behind both types is one and the same logic: seeking to establish the existence of a being (God) as a deduction from the nature of another being (the universe). This is true of both theism and atheism. Atheists seek to establish the non-existence of God as a deduction from the nature of the universe. The existence or the non-existence of ‘A’ cannot be possibly known by reference to the nature of ‘B’.

Any reference to other than the entity under scrutiny means that the answer is missing the point. The mention of ‘B’ when the question is about ‘A’ can never decide the matter. It yields belief only; it cannot lead to knowledge. When the question is about ‘A’ the answer should refer to nothing but ‘A’. the reference to other than ‘A’ means attempting to reach a conclusion supported by evidence when this cannot be conclusive because of the possibility of counter evidence. In order to decide a matter conclusively, there is a need for a proof.

We, therefore, begin the journey asking whether the universe is the only being or is there, at least, another being besides the universe? If there exists, at least, another being besides the universe we should not presume that it must be a universe. There may exist a being or more that are not universes similarly there may exist other universes. All these possibilities have to be taken into consideration/account and, at this stage, none should be dismissed from the inquiry.



The five statements now should be read in the context of the above explanation



1- Nothingness is the opposite of being as a whole.

2- Nothingness does not exist (a priori)

3- Any statement that implies the existence of nothingness is necessarily false

4- To say being as a whole (Being ) is limited in extension and in duration implies the existence of nothingness

5- Therefore , being as a whole is un limited

Is the world/universe/s equal to being as a whole i.e. is it the only being?





To follow… if the above understood



Best Regards from Ibrahim