:-)

Summary
1- Eternity as a concept is accepted
2- Ibn Alsunnah says that matter cannot be eternal
3- Charlie says that this is possible
and why do we then have to assume another factor beyond matter
i.e. this is a rephrase of the famous argument of all atheists God created the universe but who created God
4-Ibn Alsunnah justified his argumnent by saying that an infinite chain of causes and effects is impossible
5- So the question is how can Charlie justify his argument about the possibility of having an infinite chain of causes and effects which is the only way to prove that matter is eternal
Lets wait for Charlie's arguments

Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

For the first, I did not say material and energy are eternal for sure. That was your interpretation. I just said it is possible that it is. It seems to be so, but you are right we don't know if this works in the extreme conditions that must have been before BB. There you are right. But if we accept that conditions were extreme and the energy was maybe not eternal, but appeared somehow, than how can you be sure your logic works there? Is this game with "logical thinking" your only evidence of god? If you have something better, than please try with that. And after all... even if I would accept your logic and close my eyes to things that are not so logic, than what? Is that evidence of God? And even better... IS that evidence that Quran is right? Or is it evidence that Bible is right? Or any other religions book? It would just mean that something logical (or not logical) happened that started the world, but nothing else! Still not an evidence of God. 0
You say matter can not be eternal because it would mean a set of causes can go to infinity. Ok... Than I think it can go to infinity. Rather that than someone who is writing books started it all. 0
Need to go now.... Will reply the next message later tonight, or tomorrow. 0

Bets regrds, Charlie :-) 0

Dear Charlie,
Thank you for your reply
I will wait for your reply tonight
I don't want to branch the discussion because as I said previously it all depends on understanding that an infnite chain of causes and effects is impossible
Please Charlie lets look from a logicla point of view. I told you from the beginning that we are judging pure logic
We arrived at this point to two POSSIBLE causes for the universe to exist
1- Universe is eternal which means has no beginning or end
2- Caused by some cause
Both raise the question
Can states of the universe or causes of the universe go up to infinity
?
What is here against logic
?
Do you find anything against logic up to this point
?

Thanks Charlie
Ibn Alsunnah

Hi Charlie,
How is it going today, hope all is fine.
Sure, I’d love to have an open-minded debate and thanks for the warm welcome.
And let me start off saying, please do excuse me if sometimes I take a long time to reply since I’m very busy these days preparing to defend my PhD thesis.

So Charlie I’ll be very honest and straightforward. You obviously have many assumptions like we all do and everyone is biased towards what he is convinced of. We try to be as objective as we can, but to do that, we have to challenge our very basic assumptions!

اقتباس:

---

First to your secons short message: I don't thinkk you expect me to to agree or disagree with everything you claim.

---

I’m obviously not asking you to agree with everything I claim. I’m trying to build a common base so we can carry on a debate. So I wrote a couple of rules and I want to see if we can mutually agree on them, or possibly modify them first before we can proceed.

Let me try to simplify things. Think of the debate as a game. We’re right now at the phase of setting the rules of the game before we play it :). We can NOT change the rules of the game, but we CAN add to them as we play.

So to summarize the rules:
1- No assumptions can be made unless you can prove them to be ABSOLUTE FACTS (of course to a certain extent). I’m not talking about 1+1=2; I’m talking about statements like: “we believe because our parents taught us so” or a statement like: “you refuse to believe because you don’t want to accept religious restrictions on your life”…etc. These are assumptions/explanations and we can’t build on them before we prove them. Another assumption would be: God is not likely to me. We say: well God is likely to us. We are already convinced of that just like you’re convinced of the contrary. I can’t build my conversation on the assumption that God exists (although I personally totally believe in him), nor can you build your conversation on the assumption that he does not (although you are convinced so). Remember what might be a FACT for you, might not be for me and vice versa.

2- Only once we establish something in common (add a rule), can we then build upon it and can not break it. We have to make clear decisions on what we agree upon. You can’t initially start saying: I agree on rule1 above for example and then break it during the debate. You can’t either say: ok I will temporarily accept rule1 above for now to see where this takes me. It might lead you to something you don’t like and in turn you can come back later and say: well I assumed I believe in these rules, but not really! In other words, any two parties in the debate can lie or not conform to intellectual integrity (for example be convinced by an argument but not admitting it!). We really usually assume such an intellectual integrity by default; however such rules can help a little in sustaining this integrity during the debate as well as organizing thoughts.

3- Once agreed upon, these rules can NOT be changed, but we can add to them.

4- The process of adding a rule is as follows:
I make a statement (or vice versa of course):
You either
A) Completely agree with the entire statement, and then the statement would be added to the rules.
B) Disagree with the statement. Can’t be added as a rule and we try to see why we disagree or completely drop it.
C) Don’t know for sure. Will deal with it later.
Note: if you partially agree with a statement that falls under either disagreeing or not knowing for Sure.

5- Pure logic is fair game (ex: two ABSOLUTELY contradicting statements can’t be both true). And math falls under this category (i.e. 1+1=2, or probability of flipping a coin and getting a head is 50%...etc)
6- Scientific laws are fair game.
7- Scientific theories are not a 100% proof, but we can build upon them since they’re very likely to be true. If something contradicts the theory (maybe another theory), then we can NOT build upon it any more.



I will show you the contradictions I saw in your way of thinking, but let’s keep this point aside for a second.

اقتباس:

---

It is new to me that God is unlikely only to me ;-) I thought many people around the world would agree with me

---

Are you serious man? I hope you’re kidding. You’re probably too confined to your experiences that are limited in Sweden. The last survey I’ve seen from the CIA’s world Fact book conducted in 2004 shows only 2.4% of the world’s population to be atheists. So yes God is only unlikely to you and the rest of the 2.4% in the world. God is likely to 97.6% of the world’s population! So NO! Most people in the world would NOT agree with you. And YES; there are still people in the 21st century that believe in God; they’re 97.6% of the world’s population.
You live in one of the most atheist countries in the world according to many studies my friend. According to one study in 1999 80% in Sweden don’t believe in God. A later study in 2005 shows 23% only with 53% believing in some kind of force, but not necessarily God. Hmm I guess we’re not the ones affected by our environment that teaches us about God and Islam. It seems to me like you’re the one affected by your environment that teaches you atheism.
See where such arguments take us? No where! That’s why I want to establish a common background (the game debate) because your assumptions that might be facts/true to you can be false to me, and vice versa!
Obviously we can start getting into arguments like: majority doesn’t matter because majority is not always correct as you stated…etc. I agree with that but at least it might have some kind of indication. Can I prove majority is correct: No. But when we start getting into: what I think is likely and what you think is likely, then majority and statistics do make a difference. Hope you now start seeing the importance of building mutual rules before we can proceed further with our own assumptions. I want to eliminate such assumptions.

اقتباس:

---

It is true that not all scientists would agree with me, but than we probably talk about some scientists that are working with others sciences

---

Again, no I’m not talking other sciences (which you need to define anyways); I’m talking about biologists, physicists, chemists, cosmologists, astronomers, natural scientists… etc that believe in God and there are a lot of them.

اقتباس:

---

Among biologist you will find very few who will deny evolution

---

See, you’re making an assumption here: you’re assuming that believing in God requires denying evolution, or that if you believe in evolution then you should deny God! (Obviously I disagree with this assumption:)) and you need to prove it, but that’s for a later point.

اقتباس:

---

I don't have very high opinion about religious freedom in US, or in Arab countries either. It is maybe not written in law that you have to believe, but it is not really accepted to speak open against god in US, for example

---

Once again you got it wrong my friend. You obviously don’t know much about the US or the US law, so I don’t know where you get you opinions from. It’s called freedom of speech and is in the first amendment of the US constitution. You CAN talk open against God in the US. There are other limitations, but talking open against God is not one of them.
But once again this is all irrelevant. It will not help us discuss and debate to reach to mutual agreements on points.

اقتباس:

---

For example a candidate for president in US has no chance at all if he would say he is an atheist.

---

Well, legally they can be atheist; however population won’t probably elect them. Did you guess why? Because it’s LIKELY for most of the population to believe in God and would consider it very UNLIKELY for someone like the president no to believe in God!

Do you have a problem with people learning to obey since birth? And no I do not deny it. Actually I’m proud of it. I’m adding years of someone else’s experiences to mine.
Or do you want to say people don’t get affected by their environment? We all know they do. You live in Europe, and know the history of the Church and state. Church vs. Science…etc. my explanation is that your environment must have had a bad experience against religious ideas and churches since they opposed science and did terrible things for many great scientists. But whatever your environment or mine taught us will not help in the debate because once again, it does not prove anything. I keep emphasizing so hope you understand this point clearly.

اقتباس:

---

Religions say people should look for the truth (this is not unique for Islam), but if the truth does not fit, than the truth is wrong

---

Simply disagree. Hope you understand by now why.

اقتباس:

---

Ok, this message from me is maybe not filled with facts that can be proven, easily

---

Facts? Facts to you only. To me, your facts are simply not facts. I wouldn’t call them facts unless they’re proven and we both agree on them. So I would call them explanations or something like that but not facts.

Of course feel free to comment on any of my comments, however I’m waiting to see if you agree to the rules I mentioned above so we can proceed further. If not, please let me know which one and why. They sound logical and clear to me, but I have to make sure they’re logical and clear to you as well. Looking forward to “playing this game” with you :) with a sincere intention that we present to you our point of view and hopefully convince you of what you’ve been missing in your life. Will keep you personally in my prayers
Stranger,

Summary"
1- Eternity as a concept is accepted
2- Ibn Alsunnah says that matter cannot be eternal
3- Charlie says that this is possible
and why do we then have to assume another factor beyond matter
i.e. this is a rephrase of the famous argument of all atheists God created the universe but who created God
4-Ibn Alsunnah justified his argumnent by saying that an infinite chain of causes and effects is impossible
5- So the question is how can Charlie justify his argument about the possibility of having an infinite chain of causes and effects which is the only way to prove that matter is eternal
Lets wait for Charlie's arguments" 0

Hi Ibn Alssunah

Well these are my comments on this summary: 0
1Accepted (although no evidence for it, as you will see later) 0
2Not accepted. Why? Well by logical thinking. We don't know any way of destroying material or energy, without transforming it to some other form of energy or material. So: Logically, what can not be destroyed can also not be created and is eternal. However I would not go that far to claim this is an absolute truth, cause we talk about happenings that happened in extreme conditions, before the time that even looked similar to our time. I say this because I want you to be careful using logic in the way you do. Saying that there is god only because "material can not be a cause and bla bla bla" is like saying "Someone eat the grass in my garden! There must be an elephant there!" The space is too complicated to be explained that way. There are actually "evidences" that 2+2=5. I don't remember how it goes now and of course this evidence has a mistake, but normally people don't see it. So please don't make an elephant of missing grass. For me this is a typical example of believing in what we want to believe. It is not a serious evidence and would not pass in any court. 0
By the way, you said that all atheist say "If there is God, than who created god". You are actually flattering me there, cause I did not read this question anywhere. I came to this by pure logical thinking, by myself. It is a very logical question, although you don't like it. When thinking of this I also though of the next question: If god created the world, than how did he do it? So from one difficult question, you put in god and get 2 difficult questions. You see, me and the "other atheists" came to the same question by logical thinking. Thanks for showing me that. 0
4This conclusion i already commented above
5This is also explained above. 0

You still did not answer me many of my questions, but ok.. I will repeat this one:0
IF there are mistakes in Quran, do you still accepted as a book written by god? 0

Best regards from Charlie

Hi Stranger

Despite all talk of objectivity and avoiding talking about things we just presume, you still don't read my messages properly and see them in the way you like. After I explain to you what I talk about I expect a clear excuse here. Not hidden in 1000 words, but clear and visible to everyone. I talk about this: 0

I never said most of people in the world are atheists. I said many people beside me are. If the number 2,4% is correct, than we still talk about quite many. That was just my reply to your previous message where you claimed that "god is unlikely only to you Charlie". Obviously, there are some more around the planet... 0

Next: I never said it is written in US law that people must believe in god. Unbelievable you can even say something like that. I just said it is not publicly accepted! That is something completely different. I also said a president candidate would not have a chance if he said he was an atheist. I think religion should not be involved in politics. It is so easy to misuse it. Please read again what i wrote and do what you should do as a gentleman. 0

Third thing you don't need to apologies for, but I add it in this mail anyway, cause you talk about not involving things that are just presumed, not a fact, while you still do it and just get to the wrong conclusion. It is true I live in Sweden, but that is not the reason why I am an atheist. I was born and grew up in Yugoslavia and lived in a family that was moderate religious. I became an atheist there. So if you look for a reason why I am an atheist you should look there. Or maybe even better: Look in the logical thinking. 0

The rest of your mail I will reply after I get your honest apologize for the things above. It is meaningless to have a debate if my messages are treated that way. Someone who starts to read the debate from your message, could think I actually wrote that way. That is a sabotage of my arguments. 0

Best regards from Charlie

Dear Charlie,
I will try to be very brief

اقتباس:

---

2Not accepted. Why? Well by logical thinking. We don't know any way of destroying material or energy, without transforming it to some other form of energy or material. So: Logically, what can not be destroyed can also not be created and is eternal.

---

Remember Charlie, that the laws of physics apply after the Planck's time. So your statment is not correct before the Planck time
This is number one
Number 2 is that we all know that matter and energy are things that transform and they need "external" factors to transform and anything which needs an external factor and transforms means that it is not self-sustained
Get my point
?

اقتباس:

---

However I would not go that far to claim this is an absolute truth, cause we talk about happenings that happened in extreme conditions, before the time that even looked similar to our time. I say this because I want you to be careful using logic in the way you do

---

I infer what you mean here Charlie
You mean that under exterme conditions things may change, yes this is true for sure. LAWS of physics may change but we still have the other way of knowledge which is logic and we can go with logic up to the point when we discover that it is impossible to go farther
So a question like what causes the BB ?
is completely valid since the BB is transformed to this marvelous universe,
So yes we can safely say that laws of physics don't hold but still logic holds

اقتباس:

---

Saying that there is god only because "material can not be a cause and bla bla bla" is like saying "Someone eat the grass in my garden! There must be an elephant there!" The space is too complicated to be explained that way

---

Well Charlie, at the end we both agree that the grass was eaten by someone.
:):
I may call it an elephant, you may call it someone else
but if someone says that the grass disappeared for no reason, then this is unacceptable for both of us right?

اقتباس:

---

There are actually "evidences" that 2+2=5. I don't remember how it goes now and of course this evidence has a mistake, but normally people don't see it

---

Yes I know these tricks charlie, it all depends on doing things which is illogical but many people under estimate it like dividing by zero both sides of an equation,...etc
but still this is a logical flaw
Yes I undestand what you mean and I hpope I answered that in the last 2 sections

اقتباس:

---

If god created the world, than how did he do it? So from one difficult question, you put in god and get 2 difficult questions. You see, me and the "other atheists" came to the same question by logical thinking.

---

Again Charlie, knowing any fact opens more questions, this is not a problem. For example when the study of photons started in the last century we have thousands of questions like how, why , what
this is acceptable

اقتباس:

---

You still did not answer me many of my questions, but ok.. I will repeat this one:0
IF there are mistakes in Quran, do you still accepted as a book written by god?

---

Sorry I haven't seen your question before
Well it is not related to our discussion but I can tell you that a contradiction with a fact certainly means that some book is not from God

Summary"
1- Eternity as a concept is accepted ------ This is settled
2- Ibn Alsunnah says that matter cannot be eternal
3- Charlie says that this is possible
Not yet agreed by both of us, I am still to my point that matter cannot be eternal and I gave my arguments again in the last message

4-Ibn Alsunnah justified his argumnent by saying that an infinite chain of causes and effects is impossible

5- So the question is how can Charlie justify his argument about the possibility of having an infinite chain of causes and effects which is the only way to prove that matter is eternal
Lets wait for Charlie's arguments" 0
Charlie answered that under exterme conditions laws will be different and Ibn Alsunnah replied on that

At the end I want to point to one point
based on logic if we say that an infinite chain of causes and effects is possibe then this means that we exist and we don't exist at the sametime
I ( Ibn Alsunnah ) say that this is unacceptable
Charlie , as I understand, says that well may be logic will not work here because this is an exterme condition
Do you agree on that this is correct Charlie
?

Hi Charlie,
I already am truly enjoying this conversation as I’m already learning another example of how different people think with really different mentalities.
It’s unfortunate that you misunderstood my comments and my main point. My main point is that if we need to carry on this debate/conversation as objectively as possible, we have to eliminate assumptions and agree on common facts. When you talked previously about believing in God and religions, you said that you don’t believe in God/religion because they ARE “so unlikely”. This is the context in which you mentioned the word “unlikely”. When I replied and said God is unlikely only to you, you must have taken this literally when I meant it within the aforementioned context. My point was: when you say something is “so unlikely”, this is absolutely your own point of view. Yes it is the point of view for another 2.4% in the world, but the rest of the world obviously has a different point of view. So regardless of what your or my point of view is, to be able to carry on a debate, we have to build common facts and see where this would take us.

You never said it was written in the US law that people must believe in God. I totally agree with you. I never even claimed that you said that! The comment I was making in that regard was that if you don’t have high opinions of religious freedom in the US, I equally don’t have a high opinion about religious convictions in Sweden or Yugoslavia! Once again the “point” is: it doesn’t matter what your opinion is or what mine is as far as this conversation is concerned. What matters is what we can agree on (or disagree on) and how we can build upon our agreement points to prove to each other our view points and possibly change our views, or at least challenge them.
I really hope you don’t misunderstand my main point again. And I don’t really blame you since you might not be exposed to this way of thinking before, but hopefully you start seeing where we are not in synch.

When I said you are an atheist because you live in Sweden, I was NOT saying that as a necessarily “true fact” that you needed to nullify and tell me how that’s not true. It was not a presumption I had, but on the contrary I was saying: I can’t use such an argument even if that was what I believe in. In other words, I was making that comment to show you yet another example of how statements like: “you guys believe in God because you simply were taught that by your parents/environment”, would not help this conversation as they have no proof to them and are built on presumptions.
Read my words again carefully and you will clearly see that right after that comment I wrote:

اقتباس:

---

See where such arguments take us? No where! That’s why I want to establish a common background (the game debate) because your assumptions that might be facts/true to you can be false to me, and vice versa

---

!

As a matter of fact if you read each one of the points you demanded an apology for, you would find that at the end of each one of them, I keep repeating something like: “But all that does not matter because it does NOT proof anything”. Hopes this assures you that you took my words out of context.

Finally I honestly do not mean to disrespect you in any way shape or form. This is actually part of our own religion and convictions.

Let me also give you an advice regarding your last comment (feel free to reject it or possibly benefit from it as it’s clearly my own personal opinion and is not part of the debate):

اقتباس:

---

Someone who starts to read the debate from your message could think I actually wrote that way. That is a sabotage of my arguments

---

My advice: revisit your intentions. Are you involved in this debate because you want to show people that you are “right”? People don’t matter, and don’t place this as hindrance to objectively trying to learn something out of this debate. People could greatly influence someone’s objectivity. I’m assuming you’re here to learn something because you did indicate that you joined this forum to see how we could believe in God and find out more about reasons of why we believe. I think being open-minded means that I would be willing to understand someone else’s view points and possibly change some of my own views vs. coming in with a predetermined mentality and not even thinking of the possibility that I could be wrong. So think about that for a second. Also let me know if it would help to carry on this conversation privately.

I swear every time I try to make my messages short, it just gets’s longer. We should probably have a maximum of like 30 lines per post 

We truly want you to enjoy your stay here, so really nothing personal and absolutely no disrespect and ill feelings.

Let me know if we can continue now and start a fruitful debate, if so refer to my previous post and check out the rules for the debate game and let me know
stranger.

Hi again Stranger

Actually I should have replied Ibn Alsunnah first, but since I will keep it shorter with you, I take you first. Well, I enjoy this forum a lot too. If you want to continue enjoying the debate, than better show respect. I had long and intensive debates here and although there is a big disagreement between me and the debaters here I learn something every day and we show respect to each others. Despite some hard talk sometimes#I did not experience anyone here trying to manipulate my words in a way you do. That is why I expect an apologize. If you are not ready to do what every gentleman would do, than there is no reason for me to chat with you. I don't see what this has to do with different mentalities. I though that in no culture it is ok to manipulate others words to make it look like the other side is talking stupid. If you want to call me stupid, that is ok. I can fight back in the same way, but I refuse to have a debate in the way you do. That is boring and tiering. I will not sink to that low level. Do you have problems taking responsibility for your own actions? Is that a mentality, or a cultural problem? Is it difficult for a man in your culture to ask for apologize for something he did wrong? Well, it is up to you and the way you were raised. I have other people here who respect me and I will gladly continue my chat with them. I don't have time to waste on things like this... 0

Charlie

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

Thanks for your latest reply. Before I go on answering your question, i will put one by myself:
Does Quran talk about creation, or about evolution? By evolution here I mean something like god created the world and the life and than make it evolute. 0

Back to your latest comments. 0
You insist on finding evidence for god by using "logic". Well, that sounds nice in our world. But as we did agree the extreme conditions before BB can not necessarily be explained by the logic from our time. You say however that logic is always the same. Well, you mentioned Quantum physics by yourself a while ago. In our world things can not go through a wall, or just appear on other place. This is not logical but in Quantum physics it is maybe possible. We don't know how material acts in such extreme conditions as it must have been at the time of BB. So don't say logic is always the same. That is why I mean, you make some too big conclusions about things we know too little about. 0
If you don't agree with me, than at least try to understand why I think the way I do. Your "evidences" are simply not convincing. Can you understand why I see it that way? Can you see the problem in trying to explain god by the logic you try to use? 0
For the same reason I don't push on saying that material is eternal, although the pure logic says it is. Can not be destroyed and can not be created..... just transformed. But is this valid even for the time before BB? I think, yes, but I can not prove that. We must be realistic and treat out own thoughts critically. 0
I agree that in science one answer will often open more questions. However in this case we have the basic question remaining. Beside the two questions I mentioned, we also have the question: what is god? So far I mostly got replies what god is not, what he does not look like, etc. The conclusion that there must be a god is leaving this too big question without a reply: What is god? We have an answer that is not an answer, if you understand what I mean. 0
It seems like this way of debating will not make us agree. I would like if you could tackle the problem from some other side. I hope this is not your only evidence of god, cause from my point of view it is a very poor way to convince an objective and critical person. 0
I did not understand your last statement: "If an infinite chain of causes and effects is possible than we exist and don't exist at the same time!" Can you explain this? Why would it have to be that way? 0

Best regards from Charlie

Dear Charlie
Sorry for interruption but I feel that you misunderstood Stranger. Stranger means that we shouldn't discuss things which we cannot prove. Either from your side or from muslims side
I enjoy the discussion too and I hope we call it discuassion rather than debate because "discussion " is more friendly to me
I actually hope at the end, that you will learn more about how we think. Please be sure that I am not going to manipulate logic to convience you of something
I will not gain anything of doing that.
Again, I think you misinterpreted stranger's words

Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

Hi Charlie,
Hope all is fine for you. Take it easy my friend>,
Once again I do think you misunderstood my words. You're demanding an apology for me manipulating your words, but I thought I clarified in the previous post how I never manipulated your words.
I'm not saying your stupid at all and I never claimed that.
I really want to spend the time on a fruitful discussion and don't want to waste time on such things
I said it before and I'll say it again: I do respect you by all means .
If you will insist, show me again where I manipulated your words, and I will be more than glad to apologize if you can prove it.

Hi guys

It is amazing me that Ibn Alsunnah is saying I misunderstood Strangers words. It would have been more honest to defend him by saying he misunderstood my words. That would help him more.
This is very clear: I wrote #"It is maybe not written in law that you have to believe, but it is not really accepted to speak open against god in US (i was talking about arab countries too), for example. For example a candidate for president in US has no chance at all if he would say he is an atheist..." 0
Stranger replies: "Once again you got it wrong my friend. You obviously don’t know much about the US or the US law, so I don’t know where you get you opinions from. It’s called
freedom of speech and is in the first amendment of the US constitution..." 0

Next example. I wrote: "It is new to me that God is unlikely only to me (Stranger said so in the previous message). I thought many people around the world would agree with me, so even the science." 0
Stranger replies: "Are you serious man? I hope you’re kidding. You’re probably too confined to your experiences that are limited in Sweden. The last survey I’ve seen from the CIA’s world Fact book conducted in 2004 shows only 2.4% of the world’s population to be atheists. So yes God is only unlikely to you and the rest of the 2.4% in the world. God is likely to 97.6% of the world’s population! So NO! Most people in the world would NOT agree with you." 0

I never said they would. Read my messages more carefully before you reply. Is it a Muslims duty to always defend another Muslim#against a non-Muslim, regardless if he is right or wrong? If I had an Atheist here who would talk like that, I would not try to defend him, but correct him. I don't need any false evidences or arguments to defend the truth, which I always look for. 0

Charlie

Hi Charlie,
Let me start off with a saying of our prophet (PBUH); he said: “Support your brother whether he is a transgressor or has been wronged; they said, Oh Prophet of God: we would support him when he has been wronged, but how would we support him when he’s a transgressor? The prophet (PBUH) said: “by stopping him from transgression”.

We don’t support each other blindly; we actually would stand on your side if you were wronged. Not sure why you seem to assume that we have bad intentions and purposefully manipulate your words to mean something else. We really don’t and I feel that you’re taking this way too personal.

Exclude the president and high political offices; anyone can actually freely talk against God in public, and that’s supported by freedom of speech. I see it here day and night and it is acceptable unfortunately. I really don’t see where I manipulated your words. I simply refused them or disagreed to them. We can argue over this for a long time, but Charlie, what would this add to the debate? Nothing! And this is my point I’ve been trying to make since my first post.

I already explained that you took the words too literal and out of the context of what likely or unlikely would mean to God. Think about the context:

You said:

اقتباس:

---

Some things I don't know if I should believe or not, and some I don't believe in because they are so unlikely

---

.

I said: God is unlikely to you only but is likely to us.

You took it literally to mean: (You’re the only one in the world who believes that god is unlikely). Clearly I know that other people besides you don’t believe in God in this world.
But what I meant within the context of my talk is: “you can’t use such arguments, because I can say God is likely to me. And if we look around the world we will see that actually God is likely to most people. So point: such arguments do NOT matter since again they will not help the debate. Once again I don’t see where I manipulated your words, I simply refused your argument and gave you an example of how such “opinionated” arguments won’t help in the debate. It’s facts and agreement points that we can build upon only. I really can’t be clearer than that!

Can we stop being too literal in understanding sentences.
Can we get started with a fruitful debate? Or will you not believe me and still cling to the idea that I have manipulated your words when I didn’t?

No Stranger, we can not go back to the topic as long as you don't understand what is a nice custom in having a conversation. The problem is not that you said I am the only one who think god is unlikely. The problem is that in next message you claim I said most of the worlds population is atheists, and you talk in a way "Are you serious!?" That is manipulation. The problem is not that you tell me about the US constitution, but that you talk in a way as if I claimed that there is no freedom of speech or freedom of religion in US law, which I never claimed. And you continue with "Obviously you don't know much about US law", or something like that. What is obvious? That you talk of what you want to hear from me, not what you heard. The problem is also that in the first message after i pointed this, you say "I already enjoy this debate" . What was so enjoyable in starting with manipulating my comments and making me upset? 0
What would you say if i debate this way: "Stranger! You are are so cruel! You should never beat up your mother! That is a bad custom!" You would be upset and say you never do it.... And than I could reply "I did not say you did! I just said you should not do it!" That would be a pathetic way to debate and would not lead us anywhere. As long as you don't understand that, what is the point of debating with you? 0

By the way, helping a human being is nice, by correcting him when doing wrong. Ibn Alsunnah who I respect highly as a conversation partner, (although I disagree with his way of thinking) is not doing that. He supports you in doing wrong. That is not what your prophet teaches, if I understand correctly. But since we talk about that, I agree that people should get a support when doing wrong. I support politic parties that are thinking that way. No one is born evil and if someone steals, the society should help him to come back to the right way. Not cut of his hands. No thanks, for that kind of help. 0
However, there is no need for you to reply this. At least don't expect much of an answer by me. Would have been easy to say:"Sorry Charlie". I did not read your message properly and that is why i misunderstood your messages." We would have put a line over it and continue the talk. Instead you try to make me "understand" that I did not understood your message.... I will continue my discussion with Ibn Alsunnah and the others online till you do what you should have done. I really don't need this way of debating. It is quite boring. We have much more interesting things to talk about.0

Charlie

Dear Charlie,
I am not supporting Stranger for doing something wrong. Actually I understood that he doesn't mean to hurt you , he was just giving examples.
Actually Charlie, many times you say very agressive statements and I just skip them because first they are out of our discussion and second because I know that your point of view is very different and I assume always that you don't mean any hurt
For example

اقتباس:

---

No one is born evil and if someone steals, the society should help him to come back to the right way. Not cut of his hands. No thanks, for that kind of help

---

Well this is hurting to all of us, But I always try to skip such statements
Believe me Charlie, There is no bad feelings or intentions here. In contrary we are doing our best to make you enjoy your stay here
As I see from Stranger's comments in other places here, I infer that he is open minded and trying to b good with everyone. So I interpret what he says in a good way
Lets go to the real meat Charlie.
Best Regards

Charlie,
I have no problems to say sorry I misunderstand your words, but I truely think that you're completely misunderstanding my entire argument. I probably said it 10 time so far. What really matters is the actual debate which has different points of views. What you think or believe and what I think and believe are already different. It seems to me like you just want to argue too much for something too personal. I can take things personal and show you how you have already showed disrespectful to us in many previous statements you made . We ignore these because we know you don't necessarily mean to be disrespectful and move on to the actual debate to get some intellectual profit out of a fruitful discussion>> .
The main problem I see here is to "agree" on anything. you're approaching a very different mentality and different way of thinking so don't expect assumptions on either side to be necessarily clear to the other side.
it's simple: you believe I intentionally manipulated your statements. I'm saying no that's sincerely not true. If we will get into each other's "intention" we will never go anywhere trust me.
I don't by the way see how the talk about helping others is relavent in this matter.
so hope we're clear now. If not then feel free to let us know. if so, let's finally move forward
stranger

Charlie, I read Ibn Alsunnah's post after I posted mine (although his was posted first) Do you see the following coincidental similarities:
Ibn Alsunnah:

اقتباس:

---

Actually Charlie, many times you say very agressive statements and I just skip them because first they are out of our discussion and second because I know that your point of view is very different and I assume always that you don't mean any hurt

---

Me:

اقتباس:

---

I can take things personal and show you how you have already showed disrespectful to us in many previous statements you made . We ignore these because we know you don't necessarily mean to be disrespectful and move on to the actual debate to get some intellectual profit out of a fruitful discussion

---

Does this at least tell you something about how we're perceiving your comments? Would you please apologize for it?

Hello guys,

I am following your discussions and after the permission of the supervisor and Ibn Suunna I would like to participate in the discussion

Hi Charlie and welcome

you said to Ibn Suunna in a statement summarizing the previous discussions

I would like if you could tackle the problem from some other side. I hope this is not your only evidence of god, cause from my point of view it is a poor way to convince an objective and critical person

And since the discussions on finding a better way of evidence or proof for god’s existence by using logic, I would like you to look into the following five statements below and comment if you agree with me or not as first step. And then we can move to the answer of the last question.



Nothingness is the opposite of being as a whole
Nothingness does not exist
Any statement that implies the existence of nothingness is necessarily false
To say being as a whole is limited in extension and in duration implies the existence of nothingness
Therefore, being as a whole is un limited

Is the world equal to the being as a whole ie. is it the only being?

To follow …

Regards from Ibrahim

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

Well, maybe my words can sound aggressive when I am upset, but I am not an aggressive person. In fact I am a very peaceful person, but I become upset when I hear what people can do to each other for some "higher purpose". I was actually thinking, should I mention the thing about cutting off hands, cause there was a risk it would steer away the debate from the main part of my message, about misbehavior that I saw in Strangers way of debate. However I took the risk because I realized that he refuses to see what he did wrong and you certainly did not help him, by "understanding him", and not understand me. It is up to you guys. 0
I will always be against cruelties that people do to each other. When you say you are all hurt by this, I did not understand if you are hurt cause I mentioned it, or because this happens in Islam? If it is the later case, than I completely sympathize with you and agree , with you. If it is the first case, than I have to ask you. Am I wrong? Is this not written in Sharia? If I am bad informed, than I would feel ashamed for saying this and even ask for apologize. If I am correctly informed (by my friend Abdellah, who wanted me to join this forum) than anyone who supports this should be ashamed. And I repeat the question: "Is this a way to help a brother"? 0
Finally I don't think this is so far from our initial debate. I would like to move it forward and show that Quran can impossibly be written by any kind of a god, but by a human with all human weaknesses, like Sharia shows. So far we spoke for 12 sides about "logic" and did not come very far. It is time to go further. 0

Best regards from Charlie

اقتباس:

---

I will always be against cruelties that people do to each other. When you say you are all hurt by this, I did not understand if you are hurt cause I mentioned it, or because this happens in Islam? If it is the later case, than I completely sympathize with you and agree , with you. If it is the first case, than I have to ask you. Am I wrong? Is this not written in Sharia? If I am bad informed, than I would feel ashamed for saying this and even ask for apologize. If I am correctly informed (by my friend Abdellah, who wanted me to join this forum) than anyone who supports this should be ashamed. And I repeat the question: "Is this a way to help a brother"? 0

---

It is the first case. Yes you are wrong because you accuse islam for being cruel. Your friend Abdalah told you that it is mentioned in the sharia and yes it is. But you may not be aware of how these punishments apply and what are the conditions that are applied before doing any punishment.
This is a way to help the community from Criminals. Please Charlie, "Cruel " "justice" and things like that are very vague. Can you define for me these terms
If you say it is cruel to cut hands, I will tell you not it is just, It is cruel to steal someone's wealth. And again you cannot apply these rules except if their conditions are satisfied, so if there is hunger, poverty or you cannot prove stealing by 100% then the punishment will not be done
So if someone just doesn't care of the punishment and was proven 100% to be guilty then the punishment will be applied if not then it will be suspended

Let me ask you do you want to our discussion about existence of God or no
?
because if you don't want to continue we can close this discussion and start another one about whatever you like

Thank you

Hi Ibrahim

Welcome to this forum. I will gladely look for new ways to tackle the problem. However after 12 sides of playing with words I would prefer any other sort of evidences. I don't want to disrespect your try, but looking for evidences for god this way is not a good way I feel. 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.#I will develope it more in the messages with IA, butI mention this cause I have a feeling you are at the same way. 0
Straight to your questions. First I feel we are playing a new word gamethat will not lead us anywhere and I feel there is no meaning for me to reply them and let you continue. I guess you would insist anyway, so I will try, but everything depends on what meaning you give to these words. ok..let's go: o
Nothingness is the opposite of being as a whole
Nothingness sounds to me more like the opposite of everything. 0
Nothingness does not exist
It is a typical way of playing with words. If we say there is nothingness in the box, than it is a word that describes the situation in the box and the empty box does exist. 0
Any statement that implies the existence of nothingness is necessarily false
I just gave you the example above. It is all about what meaning we give to the word. Nothingness can also be a completely abstract word, explained by number 0 (zero) in mathematics. To say that this is false is not true. So the statement should be false, because it talks about "any statement" 0
To say being as a whole is limited in extension and in duration implies the existence of nothingness- Therefore being as a whole is unlimited
Honestly I am not understand this statement. Maybe it is my poor English that does it, or your english. Could you put it in some other way? If my trousers are whole, without any holes, does it mean they are unlimited, or they are not whole? You see we play with words... or maybe I missunderstood this latest statement. 0
Is the world equal to being as a whole ie is it the only being? 0
This one I also did not understand. Are we talking about world as the planet earth, or the whole universe? However it all depends on where we put the limit of what is universe. This is a question for the cosmology and there are so far just theories about is there only one universe, or more than that.... You maybe know. 0

Best regards from Charlie

Hello "Thank you" 0

If it is Ibn Alsunnah talking, than I would love to continue the debate. If it is Stranger talking, than I think we have finished. I prefer to talk to people who are showing respect to my opinion, regardless if they agree or not and who have the strength to admit they did a mistake, when doing so. So who is "Thank you"? 0

Charlie

Dear Charlie,
Sorry that I didn't sign in the last message
It is me Ibn Alsunnah
please lets be on track again
I believe I was the last one to talk about our topic , so please go back and have a look to what I said previously
Lets try to relax in our discussion and hope at the end that we will understand each other more.

Hi again Ibn Alsunnah

I am trying to have a relaxed conversation. It is not always easy. I refuse to let people treat me personally in a bad way. It would have been easier if you helped your brother to see what he did wrong. If he manipulates my word, no matter, if he did it by purpose, or by mistake, it is just to admit that and correct it as a man. No more problems. Instead he continues with "enjoying" the debate, when he just heard he made me upset with a good reason. Up to him. I also prefer to #go on with our debate. 0

It is obvious that our worlds are very far from each other. I have a completely different view at how a good world should look like. Cutting off hands can never be accepted in my mind. Who should judge after all? You say it is "accepted" to steal if there is poverty. Not literally that way, but something like that. If I steal to give food for a child who is starving, than it sounds like I would be forgiven. If I am very poor, than maybe I would be forgiven stealing for myself too. But what if I am a little bit poor... Where goes the limit? Who should judge there? We talk about destroying a human life. How would this make a world better? You get a person who will probably not get a job and will be depending on begging for money or food or to steal again. Killing people to make a better world has been practiced throughout the whole history, with no good result anywhere. Do you know that countries with dead penalties also has the biggest crimes like homocides, in the whole world. US, is a good example. I don't have the numbers here, but I am sure you can easily find them on Internet. Compare for #example US, with Norway, or any of European countries without death penalties. In my opinion, if killing is not accepted as a method of solving problems, than the state should not kill either, but show good example
of how to solve problems. 0
My friend also told me that by stoning someone to death, you ensure he will end up in , paradise. I will ask you this. If you for any reason would get in a situation to be stoned (I really hope no one will ever be in that situation, but IF), than would you gladly accept it cause it should be a way to paradise, or would you ask for mercy? Would you accept to get your hand cut off, if promised a place in paradise? 0

Please don't look at this a not important. It is very important, and since I was following your way of debate for 12 looong pages, than it is not more than fair to let me steer the conversation a bit too. I understand you feel uncomfortable about this, but this is the reality. No other religion that I know is talking about such cruelties. What is cruel and what is not cruel is maybe relative, but this should go far behind any limit of cruelty. How can you deny that? Be objective about that. 0

Yes, Ibn Alsunnah, I want to continue our discussion about god.. I am doing it right now. We are talking about a book that you claim is written by god. I claim it is not and that many things in it shows it is much more likely it is written by a human. Much more likely! 0

Please answer me at this question. I asked it already before: 0
Is Quran talking about evolution or about creation, without evolution? 0

Best regards from Charlie

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

اقتباس:

---

I am actually not here to find God. I am 100% sure he does not exist. Why I am here is to find out how it is possible that people still believe in gods in 21st century.

---

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.

اقتباس:

---

How did he create the world out of nothing? That is impossible. You admit that by yourself and therfore you invent some guy with super powers that can do anything!? Don't you see this is a tale for small kids?

---

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

اقتباس:

---

sometimes I wonder in what kind of school did you go guys, when you talk like that

---

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.

اقتباس:

---

Is it true that some versus starts with "There is no God..."? It should have stopped there. That would differ it from other religious books and make it very interesting for people of that time who almost all believed in one God or another, because they did not know better

---

Are you trying to mock at Quran or look funny? Extremly offending
suggested alternative: just don't make the entire statement.

اقتباس:

---

You think there is a God deciding about who will be born and who not? What a huge job to decide about everyone of the billions and billions of insects. Is he sitting there thinking for each case,... shall this bug have babies? Ok... I let him get them today... How many.. I give him 256.... "Next one please". Very fun

---

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?

اقتباس:

---

You say God decides of who will be born. Does he do that only for humans, or even for every microbe and every insect? What a huge job... Maybe it is not so strange he does not have time to make a world better if he is doing that all days long :-P

---

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?

اقتباس:

---

Just a short answer, because I am on the way to sleep
What is wrong with your logic about god

---

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

اقتباس:

---

I read my previous message again, because you find it agressive and sarcastic. I wanted to see... did I really write like that. But I can't see it that way. Maybe you feel my arguments quite convincing and true and therefore you feel i am aggressive

---

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?

اقتباس:

---

Please don't presume things about me and than use that to show me like I am someone who is not thinking with logic. That is not very fair and it just makes the debate long and meaningless. Please read my messages and try to understand what am I talking about

---

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

اقتباس:

---

But for a single force that needs to be created by itself and create complete world with millions of species + everything else, that is EXTREMELY IMPOSSIBLE. We haven't seen anyone do that and we will never see it either. It simply does not make sense if you are honest to yourself

---

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.

اقتباس:

---

Yes, Ibn Alsunnah, I learn a lot here and it confirms my suspecting that I had from the start. Some people believe in god simply because they want and because it is very hard to stand against something that all the society you live in is saying

---

Again don't make assumptions on our intentions.

اقتباس:

---

I have no upperlook (as you said). Maybe I feel upperlook when talking about evolution against creation, but this is because I feel so sure about what I talk. As human being, or in any other way, I don't feel that upperlook, but I respect you as all other people. Without the respect, there is no way to have a good conversation.

---

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.

اقتباس:

---

Is someone being scared I know more than him about the topic and I might show that I am right? I don't think that is very fair. Makes me doubt in intentions about this site

---

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.

اقتباس:

---

Next thing: If you really mean that you don't want to live if life has no higher meaning, than I don't want to debate with you anymore

---

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?

Hope it's clear now. let's see if you will apologize or have problems taking responsibility for your actions!

Hi Stranger

Although I gave up writing to you because of the reasons you know, I will still reply you here, because it could solve some problems. I will not even try to explain the words you mention above cause there would be to drown it in a long message. I will take other comments in another message. Here, I just wanna say this: I am truly sorry if I hurt anyones feelings. That is not the intention of my messages, although it sometimes can look that way at first view. Hope you guys accept my apologize so that we can stay chat friends and to learn about each others way of thinking. Hopefully we will come closer to the truth about the world. 0

Best regards from Charlie#

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.

Stranger

Hi again guys

After I was charged of being disrespectful and arrogant etc, I feel a need to explain why I am here and how I am debating. 0

I did not look up this site. A chat friend from Skype who I talk to, wanted me to do it. Actually he pushed me for months before I took the step to actually do it. Why? Because I want to make religious people angry? No, but because I was pushed and he wanted me to become a Muslim. Actually this was his intention from the first time he did contact me on Skype. I don't have problems with religions as long as people respect other peoples believes, but don't force me to believe in what is unbelievable for me. It is quite insulting actually. If I try to convince you about non-existence of god, it is because I took the challenge and I fight back with the same goal as you guys have. You want to convince me... i want to convince you. You believe in yours, I believe in mine. Or even more. I am convinced in mine (just as you are probably convinced in yours). 0

Let me say more about this. I travel quite a lot. Been to most of countries of Europe and some countries in Asia. I often meet people who are believers, from different religions. In Thailand people can say "We believe in this".. with a shy smile, knowing it maybe sounds funny to me. I smile back and we are friends. It would not even cross my mind to try to convince them#about something else. In fact I like many things in Buddhist religion. I don't believe in it, but I like it. It is making people better, I think. 0
I remember once I was in Malaysia (mainly a Muslim country), and sitting beside an older Malaysian gentleman. We were talking and we even did touch the religion. I remember the train passed some beautiful mosque, and I said something like "very beautiful". He did agree and was probably glad I did notice the beautifulness of the building that symbolizes something important in his life. I don't remember the whole conversation, but he was the one talking more than me and he said something like: "Religion is something you keep in your heart and it is not important in what you believe, as long as your faith is clear and your heart is clean". This is not a literal citate, but the message was something like that. It would never even cross my mind to try to convince him that there is no god. I enjoyed the conversation. He respects me (he probably thought I was a Christian) and what I believe. He probably even understood that the best way to convince people is to not push. If I would be more curious and open for Islam, I would ask him anyway. 0

Actually I like different cultures and I easily get friends when traveling. It is nice to travel and meet other cultures. Imagine how boring it would be if there were only Christians in this world, or only Buddhists, or only Hindu, or only Muslims, or whatever.... 0

So far I have only been pushed by Muslim people to make me get religious, by pushing on the chat (My friend Abdellah was not the first to try it). I wonder why? Maybe your religion says it is your duty, but for the rest of us it is both tiering and often quite respectles. I never look up for people on internet and try to make them become Atheists. That is not my task. If they are happy with it, so let them believe. But when people push me, than I fight back. That is how I ended up here. I did not come here to become a#Muslim, but really to understand why religion still exists. I do try to joke about wholly things sometimes, but as I said it is to show there is no reason to be scared. Just like you would not be scared to joke about Darwin. You will also notice that even if my comments can make people upset,i never lie. #I point at things that are logic to me and things in the religions that are not logic. I love to do that. However often those comments hurt the most., just because the opponent feels I hit the right place. I never try to manipulate other peoples comments. That would just degrade my own arguments and that is not what I need. 0
But back to my way of debating. For the first, I might sound disrespectful in some statements, but that is because I want to point at things that really sound funny to me. If I put a smiley, after making a joke about god, that is because I wanna show there is no reason to be scared of god. He does not exist. I could say worse things to my friend Abdellah before and joke about both God and Muhammad, for the same reason. I even asked for apologize sometimes, cause he was obviously offended. I pushed too far. Sometimes religious people make jokes about Darwin, comparing him with a monkey. To you that maybe sounds funny, but to me it is a disrespect, not only to him, but to me and everyone who knows evolution works, including the science. But I seldom feel offended by such things. I joke back. It is for me just a sign of how little they know. I am not saying I got that comment here (maybe I did, maybe not)... really don't remember, but I heard it more than once on chat. 0

Ok, I better stop here. Easy for me to write... some poor guys will need to read it all...hehehe :-P Hope you understand me a bit better now . 0

Cheers guys and best regards from Charlie

So Charlie,
You're saying you're here because your fiend pushed you to be here. With my respect to your friend Abdellah, this is wrong. "pushing" is wrong. "caring" is right. I think he really cared about you so he insisted to ask you to come here.
Our religion prevents forcing itself upon others. It's clearly stated in the Quran if you care to know. In our religion, we are told to deliver the message. It's also clearly stated that our job is to deliver, and not to necessarily convince.
You're making the comparison that Darwin to you is like God to us. Darwin might clearly be important to you, but I assure you that he's not as important to you as God is to us. We live for God, we "breath" God all the time. I know you wouldn't give away your life for Darwin (let me know if I'm wrong), we do for God. So I personally think it's different, however in either case I disagree to mock at neither one. If someone made a funny comment about Darwin that offended you, then we're sorry for it. simply joking about God to us is not acceptable as we have utmost respect to him. So even it it sounded funny to you, please keep it to yourself!
It's good that you travel often and get exposed to different people. You obvioulsy have yet to experience people that think like we do. .
the reason for being here does not mean you were not disrespctful. If you were charged of it and disagree to it, don't apologize. If you apologized and we accepted your apology, don't bring it up again.
again let me know if you would like me to be part of this debate. If not I will leave the brothers to continue their conversations. If so, we'll get started.

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

Hi Stranger

I am a bit confused about you. When you wrote the first message in this forum, to me..... the first part of it sounded very good.... I though it will be a pleasure to debate with you. But than came those comments that made me upset. Stranger, I did not ask for apologize about anyone hurting my feelings here. No one did that as far as I remember. I was asking for an apologize because my comments were presented as if I said things I did not say. That made me upset. And it was personal to you, so no need to say "we apologize". No one else did it. I called it manipulation of my words, you may call it mistake, or whatever, but all I got was comments like me misunderstanding you, although it was impossible to not see that I was right there. The messages are still there. Think I will give up asking for apologize. You apologized for something you did not need to apologize for, but to let the conversation go on, I accept it. But why are you continuing#in same message threatening me that you hope I "understood the rules and any disrespect will not be tolerated". It does not look good in a message where you are supposed to ask me for apologize. It makes the apologize look poor. Never mind. I just wanna say this: If you feel I don't fit here, just tell me and I will leave. No need to ban me from the site. I was asked to join the forum and that is why I am here. If you guys ask me to leave it, I will do that too... 0
I will continue in next message with your previous message (before the apologize message), because I have some interesting points of view at that, but maybe not today... It is getting late. 0

Best regards from Charlie

Charlie,
To be realistic, I think it's not a good idea for me to be part of this conversation anymore. It's really unfortunate for me. There is no threaning or anything like that, just trying to build common grounds based on mutual respect; that's all we're looking for, but I seem not to be the right person.
I'm not going to comment on any of your comments.
Enjoy the rest of your stay.
Stranger

Hi Stranger, 0

Pity you think like that. I thought we are on the slow way to find anagreement in a way to chat and I was about to reply some of the questions you asked in a former message, but did not catch the time. I will say something I said to Ibn Alsunnah before. I am too tired now to write and I will go to sleep. This is not a way to disrespect you or him, as you said before. It is the opposite. I am really sleepy. Would it be better to not say that and just ignore the message? Check at the time that message to Ibn Alsunnah was written. I wanted to inform him that he should not wait for the reply by late night, but the next day instead. That is a sign of respect, not disrespect. But maybe you are right, we sometimes talk from diffrent point of view in diffrent cultures and therfore misunderstand each other. This is probably such a case. Talk to you tomorrow, if you are in the mood. 0

Best regards from Charlie

Charlie,
I'm sorry I didn't carefully read the last part of your previous message. I did not mean to pull out before you continue with my message. I just decided to pull out as this better serves the purpose of this forum. Ofcourse I have no problem with you stating that it's getting late. That's surely nice of you. Please feel free to make any additional comments you may have.
Stranger

اقتباس:

---

What are the kinds of evidences that you build your knowledge upon

---

اقتباس:

---

experience is a good base for my view at the world

---

can you prove uniformitarianism by experience?

hosam

Hi again Stranger

Ok... than I hope we can continue with no bitter feelings. Be aware I will ask problematic questions though. I am sure you don't want me to pretend to agree when I don't, but also don't pretend to disagree, when I do agree. I will keep going on that way. So let's go to some older messages: 0

In one statement you say 97% of the world do believe in god. You know for sure that that is not any evidence at all. There are many examples of people believing wrong throughout the history. People believed that the earth was flat or even you as a Muslim will not disagree that ancient Romans or Ancient Greeks, or Egyptians did believed wrong. You will maybe even say 100% of the world believed wrong at that time, cause the "right prophet" did not come yet. So, in that statement we both agree, despite a completely different view at the world. Even today... ok... most people believe, but most people are not Muslims. Does it mean Islam is wrong? Of course not. That is worth nothing as an evidence for either statement of god. 0

Do you have any idea of how god could create the world? 0

Do you have any idea how a single force as god is, could control about all the births of all living creatures on earth, plus many many more things. Remember that if not controlling every single creature, than he is not controlling the world. Why? Because if , there is one single microbe being born unplanned, than it is possible that that single microbe will change the world. It might for example infect some person who should not be infected and change the future. Agree? 0

By the way.. don't push about the thing that I asked why someone has been asked to leave the chat. I was suspicious about the motives, but I got the answer once and accepted it. Did I push for that? No. So no need to dig in that anymore. 0

Hope you can give me convincing answers at the questions above. 0

Best regard from Charlie

Hi Hosam

First I though... What is uniformitarianism? I did not know the word, but checked on Wikipedia. If I understood it correct, than it mean that the same natural laws always existed in the universe. Well, I actually doubt that is true. Of course I have no other own experiences but these from the present time. However if universe (or our part of the universe origins from the singularity, than it is difficult to apply the present natural laws to that time. We simply don't know much how material acts inside something that looks like a huge black hole, with the extreme conditions inside. This of course does not mean there is anything supernatural about that time in the development of the universe. 0

Best regards, Charlie

What a surprise

Stephen Jay Gould ,the famous evolutionary biologist, said that uniformitarianism is one of the rules of science that we even needn't to debate about it any more!!

How can you be an evolutionist and don't believe in uniformitarianism?! It is a base upon which Charles Lyell and Darwin built their doctrine about geology and biology

Again:
can you prove uniformitarianism by experience?


Take you time in understanding the term before you answer and don't depend on wikipedia alone!

hosam