as if the universe can create it self !!
and he say there is no evidence for the existance of the God
what a poor judgement .
عرض للطباعة
as if the universe can create it self !!
and he say there is no evidence for the existance of the God
what a poor judgement .
I honestly don't know the source of the universe.اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة محب الأمل الأحمد
I just disregard arguments lacking solid grounds.
But how come you have a problem with the universe creating itself and you don't have even a bigger problem with the existence of god, not to mention his omnipotence and omniscience?
We can explain what happens inside a computer using physical laws without involving the designer in the explination. Our knowledge that computers are designed is not enough to make a general statement about other types of information. You were not there when life beganاقتباس:
Computer programs require men to actually exist, we know that. There are electricity and physical laws involved, and we know we are involved as well. There is intention and there is clear purpose, and in that design there is no space for anything random.
DNA behaves in a particular way because of chemical-biological reasons.
We actually do not need an agent hiding behind "intelligent design" to explain that. We just need biology and chemistry.
There is no intention there but just natural functions.
DNA is not SIMILAR to information. DNA actually is information. However, DNA is similar with a computer code or a book and that what was my argument about it and it is not out of context as you insist to claim. Maybe you thought that I claimed they were identical and that's would be your problem of understaning. Or Maybe you thought that I claimed DNA can be translated and read like a novel. That would be funny.اقتباس:
- I agree, but they are misleading if you take them out of context and put them in a context they don't belong to. And this is exactly what you are doing here. And your argument for that is: Because DNA is similar to a code/information/language.
It is in a way, thus the terms were coined - and that's it. But nobody except people who have a clear agenda to prove something which is the core of their lives, actually claims those terms should be treated the way you treat them.
Earlier I thought that you might have a point that those terms were coined that way because they are similar. But you were totally wrong, it was coined that way because actually it was based on mathmatical difinition of information as stated by Professor Hubert P. Yocke. This is neither subjective choice of words nor controversial, but is a brute fact that DNA contains information
I will be speculative here ;)اقتباس:
am wondering, though, and this would begin another discussion, why are so many people of science atheists or agnostics?These are people who get closer to data than I and, I suppose, you do. How come so many of them look directly at DNA, and draw conclusions without mentioning god or intelligent design? Is it a trend? Is it because they are culturally or mentally ignorant, uninformed or filled with fallacious ideas? Or is it because they are honest about it?
Some do form conclusions and by difinition they wont be athiests/agnostic anymore and probably you wont know about them since they are not public figures. And some would keep it to themselves because they dont want to influence others or create problems for themselves. Others might have fallacious arguments especially if they are really anti religion. Maybe others are unsure and still searching. Or maybe is just a convenient choice for them.
The existence of the universe itself is considered a solid foundation enough to deal with as Reality.
Ignoring this fact merely delay the inevitable!! .
The existence of God is not a problem at all, we are human beings, we can accept a lot of marvels as long as its presence explains a lot around us logically,, but its difficult for us to accept something that is not logical as it is !!,,
,, And Plz. don't talke with me on any qualities of the God before you can Recognize him first ..
:And I will be factualاقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة mrkira
The problem you mentioned here - of not being willing to change beliefs/standpoints because of the group and the power of conformism and simply convenience, is proven to have been common in religions, not among atheists or secular people in general.
So the fact you mentioned it is pretty ironic.
I have met plenty of people coming from religious backgrounds, including Muslims, who confessed to be afraid of leaving Islam because of how their families would react.
So Muslims have much more to lose when leaving Islam than atheists, atheists don't punish leaving atheism with death for instance. Yet we still observe more and more people leaving it which has nothing to do with convenience.
Don't talk about the qualities of the universe or logic before you recognize that angels and god don't live in it and have nothing to do with it. And before you realize that your beliefs are based on blind faith and wishful thinking.اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة محب الأمل الأحمد
You are emotionally attached to your religion which clouds your minds and makes it too difficult to see what is logical and what is not - therefore, you have no problem with accepting god.
But the problem remains anyway.
You are afraid of talking about god even with a potential believer of god, and that shows your insecurity.
The chances god has anything to do with your religion are so low that it is illogical to be a Muslim, even if god really exists.
There is always an attachment to some authority figure no matter what belief system you have. Athiest as well are not excluded from this rule. Militant athiests for example have their own figures that they follow and defend such as Richard Dawkin and Sam Harris. When you get attached to such figures, you would think those figures are always saying the truth and you would be blind of their blunders. Therefore, it is also possible for athiests to not change their position regarding something because of their blind trust of the authority figures they are following. I personally dealt with someone who claims to be agnostic and he said by the end of our discussion that he is free to believe whatever he wants and its okay since there are many beliefs around the world.
So conformism can also be found among athiests. Because you would not want to deal with the possibility of your authority figure being wrong. It is out of your comfort zone. And for that; they would throw faulty argument like: they are scientists and they know better then us. Or they would say that many scientists are athiests so athiesm probably must be right. Any athiest reading those statements will have a feeling of pressure to not betray the trust of many scientists and becoming a religious fool again.
Read about sth called confirmation bias. The right way to avoid bias is through debates so that it is possible challenge any hidden assumptions someone would have.
There is always an attachment to some authority figure no matter what belief system you have. Athiest as well are not excluded from this rule. Militant athiests for example have their own figures that they follow and defend such as Richard Dawkin and Sam Harris.
- I had been an atheist before I first heard of those figures. Same with many other atheists that I have known. Many of them come from religious environments, which requires rejecting authority, including god, prophets, and sometimes family members. Atheists may agree with much of what R. Dawkins says, but it doesn’t mean he is free from criticism from us. He is no guru or prophet. Not like your beloved Muhammad who obviously was so awesome that he could not lie or be misguided, could he? Now answer me, is there a chance Muhammad the prophet was wrong at least at some points?
- Atheism doesn’t mean obedience like your religion. Atheism doesn’t tell you to follow anything or anyone, it is simply rejecting the idea of god since there is no evidence for any. Atheism doesn’t promise anything to you. And it doesn’t threaten you with anything.
Religions, on the other hand, do it all the time. They tell you to believe or you may/will get punished. And if you do, you will receive eternal life in heaven.
I personally dealt with someone who claims to be agnostic and he said by the end of our discussion that he is free to believe whatever he wants and its okay since there are many beliefs around the world.
- If he claimed that, I am cool with the statement, as he is really free to believe what he wants. At least among secular people. With religious ones around it is not that easy.
So conformism can also be found among atheists. Because you would not want to deal with the possibility of your authority figure being wrong. It is out of your comfort zone.
- Other people are not authority to me. And I would love to see how wrong they are.
Like I said before:
Atheism doesn’t create comfort zones or conditions for conformism. Religions do.
Like before, you are speaking in general about something that may appear anywhere, while I am giving you specific mechanisms your religion uses to manipulate people. Mechanisms which are not in atheism.
It is possible for atheists not to change their positions because of conformism, but it is many times more possible religious people will undergo that.
And for that; they would throw faulty argument like: they are scientists and they know better then us. Or they would say that many scientists are athiests so athiesm probably must be right. Any athiest reading those statements will have a feeling of pressure to not betray the trust of many scientists and becoming a religious fool again.
- That is still nothing compared to a religious guy who may fear the same plus being rejected by his family or possibly going to hell.
- I do think that people who study something know about it more than me in general. Also scientists don’t apply emotions in their studies like
Read about sth called confirmation bias. The right way to avoid bias is through debates so that it is possible challenge any hidden assumptions someone would have.
- Most religious people have been born in religious families where they tell them god is real and they should believe in it. So they are seriously biased just at the start while they should search first before believing.
- And since you mentioned confirmation bias, do you not find it shameful that your fellow with the sword avatar ignores my propositions on the basis of my disbelief in god? Do you agree with him on this?
- I don’t feel I need to read about it, I am willing to discuss anything with anyone without excuses.
Fallacies:
- If the creation of the universe as a faith is blind faith ,, - at least I have proof -
then Imagine that the universe without Creator is must be more and so blind ,, - You do not have anything -
Nothing "in" the universe decides to "the emergence of the universe" alone, never.
- How can I be afraid of talking about God ,, and I'm trying to prove its existence to you now? !!
Plz. Do not stall ,, "Who created the universe"?
-you say :
"The chances god has anything to do with your religion are so low that it is illogical to be a Muslim, even if god really exists":
this means :
= And recognize the existence of God as a possibility scientifically ,, and you do not want to discuss it.
= Your logic "Profile" rejects this possibility ,, always !! - illogical blind "faith"-
Thank you for the recognition any way.
- "Angels do not live in the universe" !! - You do not have any evidence on that& You need to know more & its not our subject-
____________
- Let alone emotions and religion (I'll explain that later -if you need to ,God willing-) spoke only with a Focus on what will benefit you only scientifically- if you can -.
then Imagine that the universe without Creator is must be more and so blind ,, - You do not have anything
- The universe without elements based on faith should be a default position of everyone, whoever proposes something extra is obliged to bring evidence in order to be treated seriously.
- The universe with a conscious creator raises even more logical issues, it is adding an incredible agent to something not requiring any.
Nothing "in" the universe decides to "the emergence of the universe" alone, never.
- First of all, we don’t know what happened before the universe, we don’t know if “nothing” is a possibility in the first place.
- Secondly, who says the emergence of the universe required any decisions? Do you have any evidence for that?
- So your claim seems to be detached from reality.
How can I be afraid of talking about God ,, and I'm trying to prove its existence to you now? !!
- You are visibly afraid of touching specific aspects I wanted to talk about. You just want to mention those which are comfortable to you.
"The chances god has anything to do with your religion are so low that it is illogical to be a Muslim, even if god really exists":
this means :
= And recognize the existence of God as a possibility scientifically ,, and you do not want to discuss it.
- I don’t need to recognize the existence of something in order to talk about it hypothetically.
- And I claim that if god exists, you can only talk about it hypothetically. You don’t have evidence for more than that.
= Your logic "Profile" rejects this possibility ,, always !! - illogical blind "faith"-
- WRONG! I reject god since it lacks evidence, it is not faith, it is lack of faith. You can also call it being sceptical towards it like you would be towards just anything without basis.
- Give me evidence and I will accept god as a fact.
- You are the one making the claim: god exists. You don’t say he might hypothetically exist. If you do, then okay. But it didn’t sound like anyone of you guys meant it. So make up your mind:
1. Is it highly possible god exists? If so, give me evidence.
2. Is it just hypothetical? If so I could believe in any hypotheses out there. They don’t require evidence after all.
"Angels do not live in the universe" !! - You do not have any evidence on that& You need to know more & its not our subject.
- It is the other way around. You are the one who has to prove this element of your ideology is correct. If you can’t, it is just pointless to treat it seriously.
Let alone emotions and religion (I'll explain that later -if you need to ,God willing-) spoke only with a Focus on what will benefit you only scientifically- if you can.
- To be honest, I don’t know what you mean here.
SO YES, YOU ARE TOTALLY AFRAID. I EVEN GAVE YOU THE OPTION OF TALKING WITH ME AS IF I WAS A GOD BELIEVER AND YOU JUST ESCAPED, CALLING MY ARGUMENTS OUTRAGEOUS AND SUPPORTING THAT WITH NOTHING. MOST LIKELY BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY, REALLY.
Charlie1965,
You say repeatedly that you need evidence,
but when you have it on your sight –the existence of the universe that is - as a fact:
you just say we don’t know!!
When you will :) ؟!!
The fact of the existence of the universe has by default another fact say there is must be a “Creator” there for it –name it as you want after that-
My topic with you not in the science itself no, my topic is the steps you take to believe in the god and how and when we as believers stand there.
Fact -> lead to facts
Universe -> to God as Creator
System –> a ruler for that –name it as you want then but he must be existed-
It’s just as simple as that no more, anything else is irrelevant.
Your believes are for you to decide it in the end; it’s not our problem at all.
Secondly if you need to know more about the god as another added believes, then yes you will need more evidences for that at the time, but now you just need the basics to proof the “Existence” of the God no more.
Thirdly we say “who does not have thing cannot give it”, so then if we have a “mind” so the creator must be has more by default, logically that is.
But that are an added faith to the existence of the Creator not before.
------------
If you need to talk about any other topics of our believes/faith, then consider another new topic in the forum for it, we don’t mind at all.
That is just to reject any conflict in your understanding.
1st step: the existence of the Creator. => We are here now.
2nd step: the rule we have in this planet.
3ed step: there must be a massage for the Creator to us to know our purpose here.
All that are our faith accept or not on your discretion, that’s all.
You say repeatedly that you need evidence,
but when you have it on your sight –the existence of the universe that is - as a fact:
you just say we don’t know!!
When you will ؟!!
- It is a matter of what you call evidence. I noted on multiple occasions that your standards of calling something evidence are pretty low. What you call evidence are in fact arguments.
The fact of the existence of the universe has by default another fact say there is must be a “Creator” there for it –name it as you want after that
- That is your assumption. And I already mentioned in messages above why it raises additional problems.
My topic with you not in the science itself no, my topic is the steps you take to believe in the god and how and when we as believers stand there.
- The steps you may take are all subjective, based on what you want to call evidence and what you really want to believe in.
Fact -> lead to facts
Universe -> to God as Creator
System –> a ruler for that –name it as you want then but he must be existed
It’s just as simple as that no more, anything else is irrelevant.
- You mean existence and complexity necessarily requires a creator. Go on and prove it. .
Secondly if you need to know more about the god as another added believes, then yes you will need more evidences for that at the time, but now you just need the basics to proof the “Existence” of the God no more.
- Like I stated above, your evidence are arguments.
Thirdly we say “who does not have thing cannot give it”, so then if we have a “mind” so the creator must be has more by default, logically that is.
- We don’t know whether nothingness is possible, we don’t know whether the rules from within the universe can be applied to the outside of it.
But that are an added faith to the existence of the Creator not before.
-Actually, this is not how things usually work among believers. Most believers become such when they are children. I suppose you were born in an Islamic family, too, weren't you? So in fact, you were told god exists and you believed without any evidence, you just did it because your mama and papa said so and you were a good boy. Over time you added arguments for your beloved god to the belief in that god you had already had.
You can always find justification for something that you already do, not a big deal.
That is just to reject any conflict in your understanding.
1st step: the existence of the Creator. => We are here now.
2nd step: the rule we have in this planet.
3ed step: there must be a massage for the Creator to us to know our purpose here.
Let’s say I am a believer now and I actually agree with you on step 1 (just for the sake of the conversation). Normally I would say that it depends on what you define as god. God could be a powerful being from outside this universe. And that being wouldn’t have to be responsible for the universe. So even if there is a god, this universe may have nothing to do with him.
BUT LET’S MOVE ON.
Why would I believe in step 2?
And why would you mention the planet instead of the entire universe? Let me answer why: Because the universe, apart from our planet and perhaps a few others, doesn’t have conditions for life - in other words, it doesn’t look like it is here for life to emerge in it, or as you would say: It wasn’t designed for life.
- When you take a look just at the planet, it feels like a miracle, the probability for all the conditions to be met is so low after all. But if you pay attention to the bigger picture, it starts to look pretty probable just on the basis of how vast the universe is and how many planets it holds, with each of them being a chance for life.
- So as a believer of god I have reasons think this universe as well as the Earth were not intended for us. You have to limit yourself to really see what you see.
Why would I believe in step 3?
- Step 3 is valid only if we have a purpose. And your step 2 just fell into pieces. So even if god created the universe, we might be a side effect of it, totally not intended to exist.
- But let’s say the universe was really (so conveniently) intended for us to exist. Who says the purpose we have is the one you believe in? Do you have any evidence for this purpose to be valid?
How do you know the message is not a trick from god or from some other forces? What if god is testing your gullibility? And if you are gullible enough to believe and follow any religion because of your blind faith and wishful, selfish thinking, he will send you to hell for all eternity?
This is just one scenario out of many that I have. And each of them are as possible in this hypothetical discussion as yours.
And just a reminder:
BEFORE YOU START CALLING ANY OF MY PROPOSITIONS RIDICULOUS, TRY TO STICK TO ARGUMENTS WHY THEY COULD BE SO. OTHERWISE THIS CONVERSATION WILL REACH A KINDERGARTEN LEVEL, WHERE KIDS JUST OFFEND EACH OTHER BASED ON HOW THEY FEEL.
1st of all its not a debate here , it’s up to you to decide for yourself what you should believe in , so concern yourself with your faith not the audience here with me, because I am here just to explain some points you had it wrong in our faith to build on for your experience that’s all.
2ndlly believe it or not there is a universe existing now and you have to deal with as a “fact”, so there is no any probability or skeptically aspects here too, so you should act and respond in the same manner as a respect for that knowledge we have at least -& it’s all for you in the end not me- .
3rdlly if that explanation raises additional problem to you please do tell me to get more explanations but don’t Do not take our belief to your fake Perceptions about it!!
4th I didn’t hear your answer as a solid faith until now at all you know!!
Are you thinking there is a creator to the universe or not?!!
Even our ancestors have that answer but you don’t!!!
The science is just for you to tell, not to “stop” thinking at all!!
You already have all the facts that you need –say arguments no problem- , but what is you answer?
You must have one before you die anyway.
>> Anyway it’s not my concern now.
>> again : for any added believes you will need more info-steps to stand on, so right now I just need your acknowledgment for the existence of the creator no more as characteristics for him.
And I have just given you 2: existence, all knowing.
--------------
You did Branched to other topics -again- and it’s really have some good Questions in a way but it’s not our main target here so sorry to disappoint you and not give you an answer in it right now
And you may saw some Muslim like what you talked about but it’s not our faith as example, our faith has rules to explain the logic in every aspect in it thank god, we don’t born just like that at all, we learn the truth all the way in our life and decide with ourselves in our countries or out all the time with NO Pressure at all, it’s just a matter of the consequences and we have to deal with it anyway.
And whenever you complete the prerequisite of every step I did say to you then that when we step over to the next detail or added faith to understand and deal with, don’t concern yourself with it before, because it’s not for you before you have a positive believe as fact to stand on.
--------
- You mean existence and complexity necessarily requires a creator. Go on and prove it.
I don’t even need that, because our universe and its content is a fair proof to it and in the other hand you don’t even have a single example for any other in the conflict with this at all –have it if you can-.
-------
- we don’t know whether the rules from within the universe can be applied to the outside of it.
Will, at least we are in the “universe” for me to talk about it :) , this is your problem if you need to prove my wrong saying..
But it’s a good point, the God we don’t have a rule to apply on him it’s just the other way around.
Good thinking..
i will answer all what’s above from your questions -god willing i hope- but don’t speed up the info-steps I don’t have the English as 1st language..
1st of all its not a debate here , it’s up to you to decide for yourself what you should believe in , so concern yourself with your faith not the audience here with me, because I am here just to explain some points you had it wrong in our faith to build on for your experience that’s all.
- If it was a matter of preferences, I wouldn’t even raise it. I don’t believe in god because it lacks evidence, not because I personally choose not to. You also probably believe that you believe in god, because there is evidence for god. Plus you believe in all those other details.
- Now, do you claim it is logical to be a Muslim, or it is just a preference like when you choose your favourite music?
2ndlly believe it or not there is a universe existing now and you have to deal with as a “fact”, so there is no any probability or skeptically aspects here too, so you should act and respond in the same manner as a respect for that knowledge we have at least -& it’s all for you in the end not me-
- When did I make it feel like I don’t believe there is a universe? This piece you wrote here is completely senseless.
3rdlly if that explanation raises additional problem to you please do tell me to get more explanations but don’t Do not take our belief to your fake Perceptions about it!!
- That is exactly what I am asking for. Answer me why your hypothetical conclusions/scenarios could be better than any others? So far you failed to indicate that.
4th I didn’t hear your answer as a solid faith until now at all you know!!
Are you thinking there is a creator to the universe or not?!!
- You know I am an atheist, so my position is neutral towards the claim.
Even our ancestors have that answer but you don’t!!!
- It is better to have no answers than to have wrong ones. And our ancestors definitely had lots of wrong answers, including the one you love so much, unless you have evidence it is actually not wrong.
The science is just for you to tell, not to “stop” thinking at all!!
You already have all the facts that you need –say arguments no problem- , but what is you answer?
- This is my answer: Your answer is as probable as a thousand other answers you don’t believe in. Therefore, it is illogical to be a Muslim. So why are you one? Why don’t you abandon Islam when it is not a good idea? Is it just because you subjectively “prefer” it? If so, I will leave this thread.
What we already know about the universe doesn't point to god. So I don't believe in any.
You must have one before you die anyway.
>> Anyway it’s not my concern now.
>> again : for any added believes you will need more info-steps to stand on, so right now I just need your acknowledgment for the existence of the creator no more as characteristics for him.
And I have just given you 2: existence, all knowing.
- Your information consists of faith based assumptions, not knowledge. Your information is as valid as Harry Potter.
You did Branched to other topics -again- and it’s really have some good Questions in a way but it’s not our main target here so sorry to disappoint you and not give you an answer in it right now
And you may saw some Muslim like what you talked about but it’s not our faith as example, our faith has rules to explain the logic in every aspect in it thank god, we don’t born just like that at all, we learn the truth all the way in our life and decide with ourselves in our countries or out all the time with NO Pressure at all
- WITH NO PRESSURE AT ALL, BIG LOLS. What is the punishment for apostasy in Islam? What, according to your religion, happens to a man who doesn’t believe in god? Isn’t he tortured in hell for that? How do Muslims react to other ideologies?
, it’s just a matter of the consequences and we have to deal with it anyway.
And whenever you complete the prerequisite of every step I did say to you then that when we step over to the next detail or added faith to understand and deal with, don’t concern yourself with it before, because it’s not for you before you have a positive believe as fact to stand on.
- I already told you why your steps are not very logical.
I don’t even need that, because our universe and its content is a fair proof to it and in the other hand you don’t even have a single example for any other in the conflict with this at all –have it if you can-.
- So your position is as follows: You don’t know how it happened, but you are dishonest (since you started up with a belief and you lack evidence for it), so you will say god did it to just have an answer instead of no answer. I already explained how no answer is better than a wrong answer. It is much more difficult for you to accept good answers if you are already filled with wrong ones.
Will, at least we are in the “universe” for me to talk about it , this is your problem if you need to prove my wrong saying..
- Actually, it is not my problem at all, it is a problem you don’t realize you have, even though, I explained it to you like 2 times already.
But it’s a good point, the God we don’t have a rule to apply on him it’s just the other way around.
Good thinking.
- That’s a belief. Whether you put god there or something else is a matter of preferences. And since you are a Muslim…
i will answer all what’s above from your questions -god willing i hope- but don’t speed up the info-steps I don’t have the English as 1st language…
- How about answering this if you aren’t afraid? ;)
Take a look at those scenarios:
1. [YOURS] Muhammad received a message from god so people would know how to live and how to go to heaven.
2. [MINE ] Muhammad received a message from god so god would see who is willing to believe Muhammad proving they are gullible and selfish, which means they only deserve to go to hell for that.
3. [MINE ] Muhammad receives a message from a force which is not god but describes itself as god. And this force torments every soul which makes contact with it.
4. Spaghetti Monster.
Do you believe there is anything that makes your scenario/belief more credible/logical/probable than 2, 3, and 4? Or perhaps you think choosing one of those is just a matter of preferences?
ملاحظة للمسؤولين : هذا مجرد شخص مغرض يريد نشر الشبهات للمشاهدين عنده -بيتمنظر وبس- ، ولا طائل من جداله وتكراراته العقيمة ..
---------
الى Charlie1965 :
- عندما تكون رجل بما يكفي لحيازة "معتقد" لسبب "وجود الكون" وتحاور على اساسه عندها فقط يكون لك الحق في نقد من لهم معتقد بذلك.
كل ما نقول ثور يقول احلبوه !! ربنا يشفي يا رب ..
- تكرارك الدائم بافتقاد من يحاورك الى الدليل ، أصبح مسخة بلا طعم في فمك ، حتى انك تقولها في العاطل والباطل .
- الكارثية :
انك تحاور انسان وتريد ان تشرح له شيء ، وكلما تطلعه على شرح ،، يعطيك شرح آخر في عقله وحده عنه ، وكأنه سمعه منك !!
هذا يدعى كذب صريح ،، وتقوّل على الآخرين ،، وبجاحة => باختصار : دجال .
- الكلام بالعربي لتتجرع مرارة الترجمة وضياع الوقت الذي تكلفه لغيرك في تفاهاتك،،
ويستحب ان يترجمه لك أحد اقرانك العرب لأن وقعه الصوتي ربما يكون انسب لأمثالك..
فإن استطعت الرد عليه وفهمته فهذا سيضطرني للرد على كل تفاهاتك بالعربي أيضا لتعرف قيمة ما تقوله الحقيقة وتفضح على الملأ بين الناس باللغتين .
>> وانا أعلم تمام العلم معرفتك للعربية بشكل او بآخر وإلا لما جروءت على دخول هذا الموقع اصلا .
- هذا الموقع ليس لعرض تفاهاتك التبشيرية بالإلحاد وسخرياتك العقيمة وبالاخص عندما تقول ما تقول مكررا وتكرارا كالمسجل المكسور.
======================
الرد على التفاهات :
======================
1- البيه عمال يقول انه الايمان بالله مفتقد الى الدليل بتكرار ممل وكأننا لا نسمعه !!
ولكن فيما يبدو انه لا يرى الكون امامه يحتاج الى الله ليكون ماثلا امامه ،، => باختصار البعيد أعمى .
لكن حتى لو شاف هيعمل ايه يعني غير تكرار الاسطوانة المشروخة اياها : "انت تفتقر الى الدليل"
2- كل شوية عمال يلسن على المسلمين ، انت متبع اتباع اعمى انت ابصر ايه ،، ... الخ من التوافه :
طبعا ده كلام اعلاني تافه بيحاول يشغب بيه على من يتابعه بلغته ليس اكثر من ناحية واللف والدوران لعدم
الرد على ما طالبته من من ردود من ناية اخرى ،، ودي سياسة عيانة اسمها "اضرب واجرى" :
في العادة يستخدمها الاطفال قبل سن الرشد ،، ويبدو انه يتصور لها فعالية ما في هذا الحوار من شدة نصاحته..
3- كل شوية اشرح له شيء يقول انت بتتكلم عن احتمالات انت بتتكلم بشكل تخيلي ،، انا هرد عليك بشكل افتراضي ... الخ
البيه عايش في عالم ميكي ماوس فيما يبدو والكون عنده ليس اكثر من احتمالات وافتراضات وسيناريوهات .. الى آخر هذه المترادفات
=> لربما هذا من رعبه من مجرد تصور كونه حقيقة يجب عليه ان يتعامل معها عاجلا او آجلا ،،
ولكنه في الدنيا اختار لنفسه تجاهلها بهذا الشكل ،، ليواجها في شكل عذاب يوم القيامة بإذن الله ،، فهنيئا له باختياره ..
4- يتصور انه لمجرد انه ملحد اذن يجب ان يكون موقفه محايد :)
يبدو انه اخذ الالحاد في مدرسة نصرانية او شيء فهو ياخذه الحاده كالتثليث باعتباره شيء ثابت وجامد (ولا يعالجه في رأسه)
يا رب ينبت له رأس في القريب العاجل قبل ان تعاجله منيته يا رب العالمين ، فنتمنى له الشفاء العاجل بكل صراحة ..
ولما اخبرته انه حتى اسلافنا اتخذوا موقف في هذه القضية رغم ما كانوا فيه من جهل ،، جاء باجابة اكثر جهلا منهم تقول :
انه من الافضل عدم الوقوف على اجابة عن ان يختار اجابة خطأ !!
- طبعا لو فعلت البشرية مثل قوله هذا في اى شيء ذو اهمية :
لما انتفع اى احد باى تجربة ولا حتى حرك اصبع قدمه الصغير بهذا الصدد ، لكي لا يختار اجابة خطأ ،، ذكي فيما يبدو :) -
5- ظل دوما يتفرع من موضوع لموضوع وهذا مثال :
تحدث عن المسلم المقلد ،، فلما اخبرته انه لا علاقة له بتعاليم الدين ،، انتقل الآن لحد الردة !!
يبدو ان هناك ماكينة طرد مركزي عملاقة في رأسه تطرده دوما عن معالجة الاسئلة الصحيحة التى نطالبه بها وتضعه في خانة عجيبة كل مرة .
6- مازال يعيش في عالم الفكاهة والسيناريوهات الضيقة الافق (طبعا لأنه يصادر كل شيء بلا اى نوع من انواع الاستدلال)
وبالتالي كله متساوي عنده ،، لكنه إن علم :
ان الكون لابد له من خالق ،، => اذن لا توجد سناريوهات اخرى فليس الا خالق واحد مهما كان اسمه
ان الدين هو رسالة السماء => اذن الدين الصحيح وحده هو رسالة السماء ولا سناريوهات اخرى في ذلك
ان الايمان ضرورة للنجاة => اذن تبطل كل السناريوهات الاخرى اذ لم يعترف بها ولا بصحتها الله
وهو بالنهاية شخص لا يريد ترتيب افكاره مطلقا ويريدها مثل السيناريوا الاخير الخاص به مثل وحش الاسباكتي هذا او اى سلطة والسلام .
What is the meaning of this approach? Do you believe it is polite what you are doing?
I managed to decode this and that with a translator.
So, if god created the universe, there are still millions of possible scenarios/hypotheses following the creation. One of them is the Islamic one which says that we are created to be tested in a particular way on this planet so then god would decide who deserves what after they die. Also the rules of the testing are given.
But just because you see only that explanation, doesn't make it correct. You have to prove it is really better than others.
I, on the other hand, was willing to consider yours and draw conclusions, why are you unable to do the same thing with the ones I gave you?
I asked you an honest question which perhaps is not related to the topic you imposed here but what keeps you from answering?
You still didn't tell me what makes your definition/description of god and his interference in this world more credible than the ones I introduced?
Since you can't answer (I am still waiting in case you come up with something), it is logical to assume your decision was subjective and has nothing to do with logic. In other words, it is really not a wise decision or at least there is no evidence it is.
المعنى هو الوصول لهذه المشاركة منك بالتحديد ،، لأنك تسهب في تفصيلات فرعية سأحتاج للاجابة عليها الكثير من الوقت الذي يمكنني اختصاره لك بالعربية ،، طالما تريد اطالة أمد الحوار في فرعيات تافهة ،، (وهذا هو اختيارك اصلا لا اختياري : لهذا فهو يعتبر مهذبا جدا ،، لاسيما عندما اسمح للقراء عندي أيضا بمتابعة الحوار ذاته كذلك ،، وبالخصوص لأنك تريد الاستعراض الفكري والتكرار دوما ، فتأخذ مني ما تستحقه على حقيقته)اقتباس:
What is the meaning of this approach? Do you believe it is polite what you are doing?
وكأنك يمكنك تسمية بعضها :) !!اقتباس:
there are still millions of possible scenarios/hypotheses following the creation.
لا توجد كل هذه الاحتمالات ،، انت تضحك على نفسك بالرقم التصوري/التخيلي فقط ،، عندما تتكلم عن الكون ضع مكانه حرف س واخبرني ماذا يمكنه ان يخلق س ويجعله حقيقة واقعه ملموسة امام ناظريك ،، اذا عندك سبب "حقيقي" فقله لنا ،، وان لم تمتلك مثل هذا السبب فعليك الاذعان لـ"حقيقة" وجود خالق بالضرورة لهذا : الـ"س" أو الكون في هذه الحالة ..
اخبرتك من قبل ان لا تعيد شرح معتقدي الاسلامي فانت جاهل به كما هو واضح واعادتك لمثل هذه الشروح واقحامك لها داخل حوار وسؤال عن خلق الكون مضحك جدا ،، (وهذا من ضمن ما تقول عنه انه غير مهذب بالمناسبة) ،، كل هذا الكلام لا داعي له مطلقا في هذا السياق -هذا ان كان صدقا- ،، ونظرتنا الاسلامية تمتلك جانب "واقعي" انت تغفل عنه عمدا بهذا الصدد وتريد منع اظهاره للقراء من حولك -وهو ليس مشكلتي اطلاقا-اقتباس:
One of them is the Islamic one which says that we are created to be tested in a particular way on this planet so then god would decide who deserves what after they die. Also the rules of the testing are given
الجانب الواقعي في نظرتنا الاسلامية : هو ان الكون لابد له من خالق ،، ابحث بالعلم او بدون العلم ولابد للعاقل ان يصل لهذه الحقيقة لا محالة .
وسألتك في ذلك قبلا : وأنت لا تريد ان تجيبني عن السؤال بمن يمكنه ذلك ؟؟!!
-فضلا عن ان العلم يقرر لنا انه يستحيل في الكون الظهور من عدم فجأة-
لذا فان لم تكن لديك اجابه فعلى الأقل ،، افهم ردي بشأنه وتقبله على ما هو عليه ولا تشغب عليه او تفهمه بفهم خطأ مغاير .
ثم لاحقا ، اقبله او ارفضه فهذا شأنك : فانا لا احاور هنا لاقنعك فيه انا احاور لعرض المبدأ للقراء فقط .
هذا صحيح لماذا لا تطبقه على فكرك ؟؟!!اقتباس:
But just because you see only that explanation, doesn't make it correct. You have to prove it is really better than others.
I, on the other hand, was willing to consider yours and draw conclusions, why are you unable to do the same thing with the ones I gave you?
قلت لك من قبل انا معي "الكون" كله لأستدل به -كوحدة واحدة- كدليل على كلامي ،،
فلماذا يصعب عليك تصور ذلك ،، هل هو اضخم من المتوقع والمعتاد في نظرك ام ماذا ؟!!
في المقابل لا اجد على كلامك "بـ صحة الاحتمالات الاخرى" اى دليل ،،
ولهذا انا مسلم ومعي الدليل ، وانت ملحد وليس معك دليل ، امامي منذ اول وهلة -وهذه هي اجابة سؤال سابق لك-
انا افهم كلامك جيدا بالفعل ،، لكن المشكلة انك لا تفهم كلامي جيدا ،، فابحث عن السبب عندك .
اى موضوع خارج السياق اخبرتك انه بامكانك طرحه في موضوع مستقل في المنتدى هنا ليأخذ حقه من الاجابة ،،اقتباس:
I asked you an honest question which perhaps is not related to the topic you imposed here but what keeps you from answering?
فلماذا تتصور انه يجب ان اجيبك عليه هنا "بالعافية" !!
عموما وتنزلا معك اعد تحديد سؤالك وسأجيبك عليه بالعربية هنا طالما قد وفرت علي وقت الترجمة -اذا رغبت- ..
كما قلت لك من قبل لأننا نمتلك الدليل على كل صفة من صفات الله عز وجل ،، وبينت لك ذلك بأنها خطوات معرفية ،، وبينت لك انها مبنية على بعضها البعض فلا يمكنك القفز على بعضها دون تحقيق فهم تام لما سبقها من صفات ،،اقتباس:
You still didn't tell me what makes your definition/description of god and his interference in this world more credible than the ones I introduced?
انت في المقابل لم توفر اسباب صادقة للحصول على هذه المعرفة ،، فلم تقل انك معترف بوجود الله -الا جدليا والجدلية هنا لا تغني عن الحقيقة-،،
لأحدثك عن اى استدلال تالي لذلك ،وبالتالي انت من تمنع نفسك من رؤية بقية الاستدلالات المنطقية الاخرى وليس أنا ..
اما بخصوص ما تقوله انت بهذا الصدد فليس اكثر من بعض المهاترات هنا و هناك لا اكثر ولا يقوم على اى دليل ،،
فضلا عن ان تأتي لتحاجج به مسلمين !!
انت شاطر في الاتهامات ،، لكن لما حد يطالبك بدليل ،، تتوه على موضوعات تانية :)اقتباس:
Since you can't answer (I am still waiting in case you come up with something), it is logical to assume your decision was subjective and has nothing to do with logic. In other words, it is really not a wise decision or at least there is no evidence it is
انا ايضا انتظر "دليلك" على ما تدعيه بفارغ الصبر !!
وكذلك دليل على الحادك المزعوم ،، لأنه برأيي ليس أكثر من فقاعة فارغة ،، واحب ان اذكرك بأحد محتوياتها : "no answer is better than a wrong answer." وهذا يعني انك لا تملك شيء ،، مجرد كونك بارع في تسويق هذا "اللاشيء" لا يعني ابدا انك على حق ولا حتى انك تستحق الاتباع ،، ولا حتى انك تملك دليل ولا اى شيء كائنا ما يكون بأى صدد نتحدث عنه .
خدوهم بالصوت وجيب اللى فيك فيهم :) ،، يبدو ان القاعدة هي : قل ما تشاء طالما فقدت الدليل فلا عيب عليك ولا حرج ..اقتباس:
it is really not a wise decision or at least there is no evidence it is
Tak się składa, kolego, że angielski nie jest i moim ojczystym językiem.
Ale nie przyszło mi jakoś do głowy, żeby pisać do ciebie po polsku, z oczywistych powodَw - Ty po polsku prawdopodobnie nie mَwisz, więc i wszystkiego o co mi chodzi nie zrozumiesz.
I z tego właśnie powodu ja nie zamierzam niczego tutaj sobie tłumaczyć.
Nie mَwię już nawet o czystej uprzejmości - no ale jak widać, co kraj to obyczaj.
Czekam na "normalną" odpowiedź.
Miłego dnia.
اذن قد فهمت معاناتي في الترجمة اللغوية لكي تصل اليك سليمة بحمد الله ،،
لذا رجاء حاول مستقبلا الالتزام بأقصر اجابة ممكنه لكل سؤال وعدم التكرار،،
فكثير مما تسأل عنه له ردود قصيرة لن تفهمها حتى ان ترجمتها لك في مقالة كبيرة ، لأن معناها سيضيع ،،
الطريق البديل هو الردود القصيرة المنطقية والحاسمة فقط ،، ولكن يعيبها انك يجب ان تأخذها بترتيبها دون زيادة او نقصان.
So you may understand now my suffering in language translator in order to reach to you praise God,,
So please try in the future commitment to the shortest possible answer for each question and the non-repetition,,
Many than ask for his short responses you will not understand it until I translate that in a big article, but the meaning would be lost mostly,,
The alternative route is to respond in short, decisive and logical but flawed, because you should take them arranged without an increase or decrease.
Ok, no problem. You could have just told me.
I will gladly continue from here:
1st step: the existence of the Creator. => We are here now.
2nd step: the rule we have in this planet.
3ed step: there must be a massage for the Creator to us to know our purpose here.
FIRST OF ALL: WHY JUST ONE CREATOR? WHY NOT MORE?
How is one creator more possible than 2, 5 or 200?
If step 1 and 2 are true, there is still no need for a message from the creator.
That would only depend on his approach towards us. He may care or not about us. And even if he cares, he may not care the way you think he does.
If god or gods don't care:
1. The message is man-made.
2. The message comes from another source which is not god but possibly some other entity. It could be some evil force.
3. You annoy that god or gods when praying possibly also because your religion is wrong.
4. He or they like your prayer even though your religion is still false
If god or gods really care about us:
1. Your scenario can be true
2. A religion other than yours can be true
3. The message may still be man-made, since you don't know how god or gods care about you. Maybe they care after you die only and you are not supposed to receive any messages from them now or try to contact them
4. It could be a message from another source again. God or gods don't interfere, it is up to you to decide whether you want to take a risk or not.
5. The message is partly untrue. God or gods lied to you to see whether you are silly enough to buy it or not. If so, you don't deserve his/their attention and happiness in the afterlife.
I gave here at least 8 possibilities (there are obviously many more). Only two of them lead you to heaven or perhaps some profit. In case of others you just waste your time as a Muslim or you ask for trouble.
Just on the basis of probability, being a Muslim is not a good choice.
Cheers!
اقتباس:
FIRST OF ALL: WHY JUST ONE CREATOR? WHY NOT MORE?
How is one creator more possible than 2, 5 or 200?
Because they said they were more than a god,, will disputing among themselves on the referee and to be as the King of the universe and other,,
but we do not see any impact of that conflict in the laws of the universe, which mean and requires one and only one god.
otherwise it will be a Corruption
قال تعالى :
[لَوْ كَانَ فِيهِمَا آَلِهَةٌ إِلَّا اللَّهُ لَفَسَدَتَا فَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَرْشِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ (22)]
سورة الأنبياء
But we do not find any of that..
In fact, it must be God shows us the message, but without it we would not know good from evil - from what we are required to do -.اقتباس:
If step 1 and 2 are true, there is still no need for a message from the creator.
To settle this matter:اقتباس:
That would only depend on his approach towards us. He may care or not about us. And even if he cares, he may not care the way you think he does.
Will,We already have a Specific Message from him now called the Qura'n, what you are will be doing in this regard?
1. perhaps, try to prove it, the Quran in front of you (in Arabic only).اقتباس:
If god or gods don't care:
1. The message is man-made.
2. The message comes from another source which is not god but possibly some other entity. It could be some evil force.
3. You annoy that god or gods when praying possibly also because your religion is wrong.
4. He or they like your prayer even though your religion is still false
2. If they are, it will not be such miracles as the Quran
3. he could destroy us all the time, why did not he do? !!
4. We are pleased to happy him,, precaution from him is always better
2. discovered that if you can, there is no wrong message without errors certainlyاقتباس:
If god or gods really care about us:
1. Your scenario can be true
2. A religion other than yours can be true
3. The message may still be man-made, since you don't know how god or gods care about you. Maybe they care after you die only and you are not supposed to receive any messages from them now or try to contact them
4. It could be a message from another source again. God or gods don't interfere, it is up to you to decide whether you want to take a risk or not.
5. The message is partly untrue. God or gods lied to you to see whether you are silly enough to buy it or not. If so, you don't deserve his/their attention and happiness in the afterlife
3. so Discover that too if you can,, proved Man always fault,, and the Quran defies human beings and requires them to obtain even a single error since the 14 century without any error even today.
4. worship of God will not be a big problem then.
5. God does not lie,, and does not need to lie originally, lying is a tool for the weak and impotent, God is not , but why Speech in the details that God is Already clarified to us with something else.
Not a question of the large number of possibilities,, but,, follow the right question you did not follow the right, you deal with the potential only in spite of being a living in the real fact,, you must have to deal with the facts of being compared to the live,,اقتباس:
I gave here at least 8 possibilities (there are obviously many more). Only two of them lead you to heaven or perhaps some profit. In case of others you just waste your time as a Muslim or you ask for trouble.
Just on the basis of probability, being a Muslim is not a good choice.
I am as a Muslim, earning in all cases:
- If there is a God, then I'm a endorsers so
- If there is no God, then I did not lose something eventually
Unlike your doing, you:
- If there is a God, you will be in purgatory on disobeying
- If there is no God, you are not doing something for yourself in any case,
I have to answer in detail, not to prolong the ramifications Thread,, but for your convenience of a lot of points that are not only unnecessary.
have a Good faith
I would love to tear apart each of your arguments separately so the discussion will be clear and brief.
First monotheism vs. polytheism.
You said gods would mention their existence if there were more of them. Then we have pagans who believed in many gods. You could assume those gods revealed themselves to those men. Also some gods could care to communicate with us while others wouldn't.
You believe there would be some need for a referee among gods, and that is also the case in many pagan religions. For instance, Odin was the father of all gods in Scandinavian myths, just like Zeus in Greek ones, while Ra for ancient Egyptians was one of the main figures.
But what is the worst in your argument is that you try to apply rules from within human societies, where hierarchy is often necessary, to divine beings!!! Now this is just outrageous! Why would divine beings need any referee? Aren't they super intelligent and super powerful? Can’t they teamwork if they feel so without a leader? If you say they can’t, you are denying their abilities you can’t even dream of.
Also, perhaps your god is real, but he is just one of many, possibly too selfish to admit it. Or he is simply dishonest, because he is testing you and your ability to think instead of blind believing.
And since you failed to note what I noted, you will suffer for that for all eternity.
I shall wait for your response to this part before moving on to the next argument.
It seems that you have an imbalance in the understanding of my purpose:
I- talking about denial, "the possibility of" the presence of more than God (to the collision between the need perfection among themselves - if they are - in government and other)
(This is the reason for the impossibility of polytheism)
= You imagine I proved plurality,, understand this error.
= You imagine the existence of a hierarchy,, I am talking about only one God.
= The existence of more than one God means that all God's presence in perfection challenged the divinity of all of them (this is why the impossibility of polytheism).
If found true God,, there would be no otherاقتباس:
Also, perhaps your god is real, but he is just one of many
All others impossible, described by the gods after him
This speech just repeatاقتباس:
he is testing you and your ability to think instead of blind believing
the Respond to it very clear
know God's message to you and then carried out.
Without your knowledge will continue to be lost in this world of suspicious possibilities .
Here are your claims:
1. God has to be perfect.
2. A perfect god would make it impossible for other gods to coexist.
3. More gods would struggle on the basis of which one is better/perfect or which one should be the leader.
YOUR STATEMENTS MAKE NO SENSE. PROVE ANY OF THOSE, OTHERWISE YOU ARE JUST MAKING STUFF UP.
And how do you know gods don’t struggle? This universe could just be a work of some of them, it is also not a perfect world so it doesn’t require perfect creators (I actually gave you an argument based on a fact here). They might be above us but don’t have to be perfect.
What you know are baseless beliefs, so this can’t be called knowledge. And I repeat myself because you don’t realize it. You are too limited to your scriptures to see other possibilities which are as probable in this hypothetical talk we are having. By introducing such arguments, you really make it feel more and more your religion is man-made. Don’t you have anything better? Just take a look at your logic:
There is only one god (baseless belief) because god has to be perfect (baseless belief), and because more gods would struggle (baseless belief; also there is a probability actually have struggled which is independent from your perception).
A belief supporting a belief supporting a belief - do you know what this is called? Circular logic = fallacy.
DON'T EVER MENTION ANYTHING FROM THE QURAN UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE IT WORKS.
Cheers.
I forgot to mention:
In many pagan beliefs gods actually fought against each other and some of those fights had impacts on humans.
it's not for just me at allاقتباس:
Here are your claims:
this is our believe no more what evidence you need in that? !!اقتباس:
YOUR STATEMENTS MAKE NO SENSE. PROVE ANY OF THOSE, OTHERWISE YOU ARE JUST MAKING STUFF UP.
This is your perspective on this issue
And it has exist difference that we see between the God we worship as our Lord and the rest of the other names that launched human beings on the other
I can give you evidence of our texts legitimacy of this is that if you want,, but this is the only conclusion
God is the one who puts the laws of the universeاقتباس:
And how do you know gods don’t struggle?
Such as gravity and other
If it finds any defect in it then probably we know that there are more than God
But we find such norms are going in all the universe, such as the knife is not hampered by any obstacle
This Profile your perspective as a man,, because you say about what you do not know it randomly,, but for God,, every stone or atom placed in the right location, which he wants from the beginning.اقتباس:
it is also not a perfect world
Versa of controls in such a universe must be complete ..اقتباس:
They might be above us but don’t have to be perfect
I do not speak again by default at all,, I explain to you my faith,, which "is not subject to discussion," and you receive Him or reject it as you want for yourself later ..
I do not see any circular on the subjectاقتباس:
do you know what this is called? Circular logic
I find it just a logical hierarchy
You get lost with yourself from the questions do not relate to what I'm saying to you
القرآن هو الدليل الذي تطلبه ،، ان لم تستطع التعامل مع كونه موجودا بين الحين والآخر ،، فلا تطالبني به .اقتباس:
DON'T EVER MENTION ANYTHING FROM THE QURAN UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE IT WORKS.
Quran is the evidence that you require,, if you can not deal with being located between now and then,, Do not ask me to do.
I apologize that was a few sentences meaning is not clear to you,,
I was hasty Only then,,
If it is not clear the meaning of any statement Tell me about them, for the sake of re-revised, for you, God willing ..
well, that made my day.اقتباس:
This universe could just be a work of some of them, it is also not a perfect world so it doesn’t require perfect creators (I actually gave you an argument based on a fact here).
If we came to the conclusion that God exist, the logic is to believe in one God by default unless someone can prove there are multiple Gods. No need to pre-complicating the solution.
BTW, you have presented zero facts, not sure what you meant by your line over there.The world is not perfect? Ok, but please define "perfect world" if you can... NO ONE can do. However, the Quran did describe perfect world and named it heaven... reaching it is the purpose of Islam.
However, you made a wrong assumption which is the creator does not need to be perfect. No facts or anything to support that besides "My world sucks, that means the one who created is not perfect" or whatever baseless beliefs. God can never be anything but perfect and flawless... so even arguing about god/gods that are not perfect (like you did) is just wrong.
Why is that? I can give some answers like if the creator is not perfect, meaning that he makes mistakes just like any non-perfect thing... Then, where do you find ANY mistake like that in the universe?! No one can see any mistake.
Now, you said "the world" is not perfect... the world is ruled and inhibited by us humans... and we are sinful creatures by default just like God himself told us. And the only way we can be better than that sinful nature is to follow his commands.
If you look to Islamic (or religious) teachings, all of them are for morality and rules to define our life... this is a whole different topic so I will not start it here.
Finally, I hope you reach the truth one day because all humans have the right to be in God's heaven.
If you make a conclusion that one god exists, then it is logical for you to believe there is one god, obviously.
But if you simply state that the universe is a result of some divine power, this power could be from one as well as from many entities.
if you know that one god is a possibility, then more of them would not be a problem either (just like the universe of ours raises suggestions that more universes are possible). Secondly, gods could create gods.
The only arguments you have against that are: A. God is perfect. B. 1 god is a simpler and less complicated answer that more gods. So you accused me of overcomplicating things and then you just added a problematic feature which is totally unproven to exist at all - perfectness. Just because my world sucks surely doesn’t mean god is not perfect, but it also doesn’t mean he is perfect. And it is your responsibility to prove he is, which you can’t possibly do.
And yes, this world is not perfect, just because it somehow works doesn’t mean anything. We are not talking about things working. We are talking about perfectness. A perfect thing can not become a subject of further improvements. And this universe obviously can. There are lots of things which don’t work well in it or could work better. Even DNA has flaws. You chose the laws of physics as an example - well perhaps gods can’t violate those. Or those laws are temporary - after all we don’t know about the laws of physics from before the universe. Plus those laws don’t work in a perfect way, unless you can prove they couldn’t be better.
And then you added another argument - that god created us flawed for a purpose - this seems like adding another unnecessary element/argument overcomplicating the story. And it is again without evidence.
And of course, I have presented zero facts, just some propositions on the way. But so did you. And this was my aim from the beginning of this particular topic, to point out that MONOTHEISM IS AS CREDIBLE AND LOGICAL AS POLYTHEISM.
And you even supported that:
this is our believe no more what evidence you need in that? !!
And any statement from the Quran undergoes the same evaluation statements from outside of it would. So it doesn’t really matter whether it talks about god, perfectness and heaven, as long as those claims can not be verified.
Also:
I do not see any circular on the subject
- Circular logic is when you use faith based claims to support faith based claims. And this is what you did. You may find that logical but it is really irrelevant. There can be no more gods than one (not a fact) because god has to be perfect (not a fact) and because perfectness rejects many gods (again not a fact).
If you look to Islamic (or religious) teachings, all of them are for morality and rules to define our life... this is a whole different topic so I will not start it here.
I will gladly discuss MORALITY now unless you want to continue with polytheism.
:26: الى اين وصل الحوار :39:؟
الترجمة انقطعت
that is a BIG mistake! I don't know how you actually said that! Physics is a part of nature, and nature itself didn't exist before the big bang. How come there was some part of nature before it even existed?! No credible scientist say that nature was there before the big bang... nature itself and everything was inside the singularity... so your line is objectivly scientifically wrong.اقتباس:
we don’t know about the laws of physics from before the universe
That is my way which is the correct one... you first have to prove the existance of god then talk about his properties. However, you seem to contradict yourself after that... Devine power = God, there is not devine power with humans or any other forms of life. so devine power is the God himself... then I follow what you have stated about believing in one God.اقتباس:
If you make a conclusion that one god exists, then it is logical for you to believe there is one god, obviously.
But if you simply state that the universe is a result of some divine power, this power could be from one as well as from many entities
First we believe in one God then if someone say there are 3 gods, he has to prove it since there is no need for such assumption. And, multiple gods means that there are weak gods and powerful gods... so who is the creator? if 2 of them had differences, who should we follow? If you followed the command of god1 and me god2... we both can rest in hell because we disobeyed the other god!! but wait.. who owns hell?! who controlls heaven or have the authority?
^ that is just very simple compelxity being added for no purpose at all, thus one god is much more simpler and more reasonable that multiple gods
I will continue later on... I have no time now... please wait xDاقتباس:
The only arguments you have against that are: A. God is perfect. B. 1 god is a simpler and less complicated answer that more gods. So you accused me of overcomplicating things and then you just added a problematic feature which is totally unproven to exist at all - perfectness. Just because my world sucks surely doesn’t mean god is not perfect, but it also doesn’t mean he is perfect.
continuing on
so you say the following: 1- god is not perfect or no need to be so. 2- multiple gods are simple and not complex thus reasonable.اقتباس:
The only arguments you have against that are: A. God is perfect. B. 1 god is a simpler and less complicated answer that more gods. So you accused me of overcomplicating things and then you just added a problematic feature which is totally unproven to exist at all - perfectness. Just because my world sucks surely doesn’t mean god is not perfect, but it also doesn’t mean he is perfect
^
this is baseless belief at its best. your response against me was simple unproven unreasonable assuptions... while I stated at least more reason in my lines. I didn't add a problematic feature at all... without this feature in god, he is not god at all. god or the first cause of the universe is omnipower and has the absolute knowledge and lacks nothing.
your speech at the universe is wrong too.. why? because it is subjective to you. another man would say: "sun is not pure white, rather has some yellow in its light... thus it is imperfect... perfect sun is purely white sun" << and this continues forever.
When you look at the fine-tunning of the universe, you know the intelligence behind it. ALL the constants were callibrated to allow life to begin... this can never be due to chance or whatever atheists say these days. life permitting callibration is so low that if one constant got changed by very tiny amount, life would not exist at all!!!
Sure you can say that perfect universe must permit life more than that tiny gap... but, again, god did not want to create a universe that is 100% good for life to exist. And if life can exist in say 70% of it which is a huge amount, I am SURE atheists will say "what about the 30%? if god exists he must have allowed life to exist 100% in the universe not just 70%" and that nonsense will keep going nonstop.
actually, the word "perfect" is used by us due to our own subjective understanding of things.. so it is improper to call god "perfect" using our standards and understanding...
maybe you understood me wrong here, I didn't mean "flawed" but rather "sinful". no evidence? people today refuse god and most humanity today are not muslims (because islam is god's only way) and the ugly stuff they do like homosexuality, terrorism, inslaving mankind (like america does), racism.... etc. you must be new to our world if you don't recognize this. absolutely.اقتباس:
And then you added another argument - that god created us flawed for a purpose - this seems like adding another unnecessary element/argument overcomplicating the story. And it is again without evidence
if you look at the quran you find these facts very well documented and explained! and god always urges us to follow his commands and never revert to our sinful nature... this is to see the actual effect of believing in god and what it does to that sinful creature!
I maybe went harsher against you, but I really hope you open your mind more than that because I saw you affected by new atheism propaganda and arguing methodology which cares about bringing as much objections as there is without really thinking much on the other side.
I end up with 2 funny questions for you, please answer them:
1- If I told you I am a Super Saiyan God, would you believe it? why? is it possible? scientifically possible?
2- If a tiger killed a kid and ate it, is it a good thing or a bad thing? why? is it a sin? what if a human did the exact same thing... your answers to that?
regards,
Saiyan prince
Actually it is objective to say we don’t know about the situation from before the universe emerged. So it is also unclear when it comes to the laws of physics. And the people who wouldn’t say laws of physics existed before the universe, are often the same people who wouldn’t say the universe was intelligently designed. So you take their word in one case, when it is comfortable to you, and avoid it when it’s not. How convenient.
Here are other arguments concerning laws of nature:
- they may actually depend on what gets created, being a natural consequence of things existing and things having particular properties as well as of interactions between those things - then it would depend on gods which rules would be applied,
- they may work this and not that way since it would be logically impossible for them to work another way - totally independently from any gods. Unless gods could violate logic, which I wouldn’t say could happen.
And yes, you have to prove the existence of many gods as well as of one god and you have to prove the qualities of that god or those gods. But you fail to do it which makes many gods as possible as one. Divine power may equal both one god or more.
who owns hell?! who controlls heaven or have the authority?
- Who says there are any of such places?
- Usually the stronger hold authority.
- It is likely that you should follow no god since, as I stated above, it seems risky to try to make contact with any.
- This question of yours is totally irrelevant as it comes from the unprovable doctrines you are taught which have nothing to do with logic.
Purpose and complexity don’t have to come from one god. One god would only be reasonable if you could prove it, but you can’t.
so you say the following: 1- god is not perfect or no need to be so. 2- multiple gods are simple and not complex thus reasonable.
Yes, no need and no evidence for perfectness to be even necessary. Plus many gods may be complex and reasonable to a degree, still not reaching perfectness.
You are saying that perfection is not problematic while more gods would be. But it is, since you can’t even prove perfection was ever possible in the first place. Also one father god (like in many pagan religions) could be responsible for other gods, and those gods could be responsible for this universe. That father god would have little to do with us then.
You are saying that without perfectness god is not god. Well, that is only according to your definition of god, but you can’t prove it is correct so it is a matter of believing - circular logic again.
A god or gods, even if they were responsible for the universe, wouldn’t have to know everything. They would just need to know PERHAPS how to create universes.
your speech at the universe is wrong too.. why? because it is subjective to you. another man would say: "sun is not pure white, rather has some yellow in its light... thus it is imperfect... perfect sun is purely white sun" << and this continues forever.
- Exactly. You just created an argument against perfection - making it look like a matter of subjective preferences.
life permitting callibration is so low that if one constant got changed by very tiny amount, life would not exist at all!!!
- How do you know another set of constants are impossible for life to emerge?
- How do you know there weren’t universes before this universe which collapsed because they had lame constants? You don’t know that.
- Also you are talking about a tiny fracture of the universe? This is not 70% OR 30% of it. Not even 1%. It is like 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00.1% of the universe or less that allows some life on it. So no, it doesn’t look like it was finely tuned for people to live in it.
IN ORDER TO THINK WHAT YOU ARE THINKING, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT A VERY LIMITED PICTURE. BUT THAT DOESN’T SEEM RIGHT, MY FRIEND.
actually, the word "perfect" is used by us due to our own subjective understanding of things.. so it is improper to call god "perfect" using our standards and understanding...
- So stop calling god perfect on the basis of your subjective understanding.
- Telling there is intelligence involved is also a matter of your subjective perception, not facts.
maybe you understood me wrong here, I didn't mean "flawed" but rather "sinful". no evidence? people today refuse god and most humanity today are not muslims (because islam is god's only way) and the ugly stuff they do like homosexuality, terrorism, inslaving mankind (like america does), racism.... etc. you must be new to our world if you don't recognize this. absolutely.
Maybe you don’t understand that the word SIN is a word coined by MEN, not GOD, to refer to actions WE don’t want to experience in the society, not GOD. WE gave the word that meaning, not GOD. We made up all these rules dividing things into sinful and not sinful. So it is totally subjective.
- What your religion finds sinful, like the disbelief in god, is objectively not sinful at all. Actually it is ignorant and illogical to be a part of Islam, therefore, being a Muslim could be called sinful, objectively.
- So you find homosexuality wrong and sinful. I find you wrong and sinful for holding that opinion on homosexuality.
- Enslaving mankind? - Since when is slavery bad in Islam? Can Muslims have slaves and others can’t? This is called applying double standards.
I maybe went harsher against you, but I really hope you open your mind more than that because I saw you affected by new atheism propaganda and arguing methodology which cares about bringing as much objections as there is without really thinking much on the other side.
- Your religion is proven to use a wide range of manipulation techniques and it fills little kids with propaganda from the very beginning.
- Islamic societies are proven to be less educated and also limiting other ideologies, including secular thought.
- Islam threatens people with hellfire, and promises things that are not proven existing.
- Islam alters words such as peace, love and justice.
- Lots of Muslim scholars claim apostasy is punishable by death. - Do you have something to say about that?
- ATHEISM DOESN’T DO THOSE THINGS. SO DON’T MENTION WORDS LIKE PROPAGANDA OR NARROW-MINDEDNESS, AS YOU YOURSELF BELONG TO A GROUP WELL KNOWN AS PIONNEERS OF MAKING PEOPLE MINDLESS DRONES.
Also, how is it narrow-minded if I introduce other options and show how they are as possible as your religion or even more?
1- If I told you I am a Super Saiyan God, would you believe it? why? is it possible? scientifically possible?
- I would expect clear, testable and measurable evidence for every feature you would say you have. And it is as possible as your god or many gods. Or Spaghetti Monster.
2- If a tiger killed a kid and ate it, is it a good thing or a bad thing? why? is it a sin? what if a human did the exact same thing... your answers to that?
- It would be negative to the society. It would be worse if a man did it, because that man comes from our society causing additional danger to us, since we can more easily prevent danger from animals than from the inside of our communities. Because of that such a cruel act would also create a lot of anxiety within the community where it would happen.
I have a question for you, too:
Is it okay to marry a 7 year old girl who started to have periods 3 months ago, according to Islam? And is it okay to have an intercourse with her after marriage?
I am still waiting ....
So am I.
so be it !!
There are no replies concerning my last post - should I move on to the next aspect of our discussion?
God willing, I will respond, when the availability of what I have time to read the branching that has occurred without the direction in which you're talking
To cover all kindly addressing it fully and apologized for concern
Only a few points,, and I want to know where you stand them,,
only of being with or against each item without refutation:
1. The existence of God
2-existence of God and his clear attributes
3-goal and function of us in this life is a must
4-There are a message from God to us is a must
5-Islam is the correct message from God to us today
Some points owed on each other, so what is not acceptable at all is not obligatory on all the consequences of it ..