jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (223 posts)

THE PHILOSOPHY OF'' IBADAT'' [WORSHIP] IN ISLAM

  1. FatFreddysCat profile image93
    FatFreddysCatposted 3 years ago

    IS YOUR CAPS LOCK BUTTON STUCK?

    1. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      His religion prevents him from speaking quietly about it.

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks , Islam is the religion of peace and love , be broad minded .

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          This is a community with certain rules and guidelines in relation to courtesy.  Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with them.

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Surely.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Not according to the Quran, it isn't. There are plenty of verses of violence, bigotry and hatred towards those who don't follow Islam. Allah is extremely cruel.

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            A Troubled Man , it is not correct, Allah is extremely kind and Merciful . Some verses you have referred are related to the exceptional situation of war and can never be applied to the general circumstances and even war is allowed only in defense  against aggression and in the support of subjects . Further , the principles of war have been defined as to avoid conflict wit women and children, trees are not to be ruined , the fight is to be made only with combatants ,these are human rights .

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Not according to many verses in the Quran, Allah is cruel an inhumane.



              Any religion that has guidelines for war should be rejected.

              1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                My dear, A Troubled Man , if some one will attack you, what will you do, you will love with him, obviously, you will have to defend yourself, here is war required , you can never defend with love, further war is required to protect the victims and subjects , this is what Islam did, God is not love, God is power and he better knows where is power is to be exercised. The positive use of power is not cruelty .If your state arrests criminals , gives punishment using force , is it wrong ? therefore, Allah  is justice and protector of human rights ,

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Allah is the one that stones women to death for being in a closed room with a man she is not married to huh? What a loving Super Being. lol lol

                  Human rights? Unless you are a woman wanting to wear a bikini. lol lol

                  1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Mr. Mark Knowles , Allah is the one who has protected  all human rights of men and women , including the rights of life, property,food , shelter,honor, marriage ,religion,etc.and subsequently the same have been incorporated in declaration of human rights of UNA,therefore,your continent should be thankful to Islam in this respect .

                2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No one is attacking me. Do you find yourself getting attacked by people all the time? Do you get attacked by people every day? Once a week? Once a month?



                  Yes, of course, but we already know that it is our nature to protect ourselves.



                  No, that is not a war. Wars are made between countries, not individual people, and there are already declarations for that.



                  Islam does not protect anyone in a war, that is ridiculous.



                  Your god has nothing to do with wars, other than teach their followers to start them.



                  Strawman fallacy. What the state does to criminals has nothing to do with wars.



                  Islam does not support human rights, that is a lie. The Declaration of Human Rights was not signed by some countries that are Islamic because they would not allow the right for anyone to change their religion or belief, based on Islam.

                  Again, I repeat, any religion that has guidelines for war should be rejected. Any religion that does not support human rights should be rejected. Islam falls under both categories.

                  1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    My dear Troubled Man , if one country is attacked, it should not defend it self ?   Britain , France etc,were not to make defence against Hitler ? USA was wrong in counter war against  terrorism ? Obviously, war is requirement of a nation and country for its survival and defence under exceptional circumstances ? This is historical fact and can not be denied , I am not supporting war, I am explaining logical requirement of war under exceptional circumstances not as essential  requirement  only to counter aggression and cruelty , therefore, a sweeping statement to negate a religion associating it with war is not sufficient and this will compel us to review our opinion about the defending nations .

        3. 0
          riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Still a 'religion'!! Peace and love is a different question!! The people of ancient Mecca must have known it's love on or before 624 AD!

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Mr.riddle 666,A true religion like Islam is nothing but love, peace,conscious, conscience, reason and morality .

            1. 0
              riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              A "true" religion is nothing but nonsense and emotions. There is no reason nor morality but only a quest for power.

              1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Mr. riddle 666 , Misconception and contrary to record of history and facts ,if true religion is nonsense and emotions , then study  modern science is originated from where ? obviously, by Muslim scientists who not only transferred the deductive reason of Greeks to West but also realized the importance of inductive reason and outer experience as important source of knowledge in the light of Quran where emphasis was made over the same and transferred the same method of inquiry to West in Spain and Roger Bacon received the same from the Muslim university of Spain .

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Both deductive and inductive reasoning can ONLY produce the result that no god is indicated or needed.  Obviously science did NOT originate with the church - any church whether Muslim or Christian.

                  Indeed, any Muslim scientist that actually investigates the question is subject to physical harm; Muslims, according to Allah, are not to be allowed to leave the religion.

                  1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Mr.wilderness, deductive and inductive reasoning can only produce result that no god but GOD [ Allah] and this is Islam . Islam is nothing but freedom of man from man made gods . This superior conscious in relation to universe  and nature ultimately resulted in the present development of man . It is established fact in history that Muslims have contributed in inductive reason and have considered senses and outer experience as an important source of knowledge contrary to Greeks who were interested in deductive reason only . Western historians have admitted this fact .Quran is not against science but it invites for the application of reason, observation and outer experience almost on its every page and also has provided number of scientific evidences which have been recognized by some western scientists ...

                2. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Modern science from islam, don't make me laugh. There were a few philosophers who may be called scientist by old standards but no scientists. And transferring information is not science.  And if you know how to use deductive logic then you should know that gods are illogical.

                  1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    riddle 666, you are not required to laugh because history is laughing at you. It is established fact in history that Muslims have contributed in inductive reason and have considered senses and outer experience as an important source of knowledge contrary to Greeks who were interested in deductive reason only . Western historians have admitted this fact . For your information, Muslim scientists and philosophers are different and have been recognized by West and their books also have been translated by west and have been studied , Muslims contributed themselves and translated Greek work and made advancements . It is correct that gods are illogical but God is logical who has created you and me .

                3. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Once again, you are lying. There were only a very few Muslims how offered something to the world. The Greeks offered what they offered, which had nothing to do with Muslims. Muslims conquered and stole ideas from other societies and made them their own.

                  1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    A Troubled Man , we are not sitting here for making allegations of lying or not lying  ,be argumentative my dear , we are here for researching facts and truth in light of history and logic, therefore , try to take unbiased and impartial view of history of religion with open m ind and without being preoccupied . It s now established fact in history that the Muslims contributed in inductive reason and as an important source of knowledge .Western historians have admitted this fact . Get your facts right!

    2. sibtain bukhari profile image62
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks .

  2. 0
    riddle666posted 3 years ago

    Mr. SIBTAIN BUKHARI,
    You still have not addressed your claim that you can show the existence of god rationally and logically, why is that?
    If you can't, then you have to admit that every religious books that says there is god is wrong, is that why?
    So if you ever try to rationally explain god you will understand why religion and science is incompatible and why religious fundamentalists want to stifle science.


    And if god cannot be rationally explained or logically proven or if god has no evidence, then on what basis you say there is god? Because it is written in a book by ancients who doesn't even know half as we do, will you take it as true? If so then why don't you accept the bible,  the puranas, the gita.....but only Quran?
    And you are yet to tell me the reason why you believe Muhammad, the observation you made, to accept what he said was true, the conscience and conscious behind the said belief.

    1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      riddle 666,

      The logical proof  of existence of creator

      "Everything is a creation that never proves its self creation."

      "Universe never proves its self creation."

      "Therefore , universe is a creation."

      "Every creation is created by creator."

      "universe is a creation."

      "Therefore universe is created by creator. "

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        OK, let's look at this.  Wish you'd numbered them for discussion sake, but I'll assume they are 1 to 6, top to bottom

        #1  An opinion, if I understand it.  I would say that everything is a creation regardless of how it comes about. It appears, however, to mean that if we can't prove self creation then god did it.  As such, it is false; ignorance never leads to such knowledge.

        #2  Accepted.  There is no evidence that the universe self created, just as there is no evidence that a god did it.

        #3.  As #1 is a false statement and this depends on it being true, #3 is also false.  Or, more specifically, unknown to be true.

        #4  Absolutely false.  I did not self create myself, my mother and father created me.  Using your own logic, that makes my parents gods; something that is untrue. 

        #5  True, unless you intend that "creation" infers a creator.

        #6  As this statement depends on #4 (known to be false) and #5 (true, but not in the intended meaning, where it is also false), it is also false.  Or again, unknown whether true or false.

        Note that your entire logic string depends on the first premiss (#1) and the fifth (#5) to be true.  This is right and proper, and is how logic works.  Unfortunately those statements are NOT known to be true - they are assumptions that do not necessarily have basis in fact.  What you have said in #1 is that "If we can't prove a god does not exist then it does; a very obvious fallacy I've mentioned before; ignorance does not prove anything. 

        Same for #5; if it means that the universe was not there, is here now, and thus is a "creation", fine.  If you mean that it required a (intelligent) creator to do the creating, it is unknown whether it is true or not.  Sand, for instance, is a "creation", "created" by the action of water, wind, temperature and probably plant and animal actions on rock.  No "creator" such as you intend is needed to create sand.

      2. 0
        riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        As wilderness explained in detail I will be brief.

        Not a true premise. So lets as say everything is a creation. [How can anything prove? And why should anything be created? This premise is a false assertion]

        Universe cannot prove, universe is a collection of matter- things separated by space.

        Based on the first premise, but you haven't told why that premise is true.

        Naturally, creation mandates two objects the mediator (creator) and the target object. So which is the target?

        Unsound conclusion of the first logic. That means this premise is false.

        OK. So what about god, is it a thing or nothing? If it is a thing based on "your" first premise, everything is created, god is created. If god is nothing, how can nothing act on nothing to create? Or you want "special pleading "?


        Out of curiosity, based on your first premise, does god proves its self creation?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "Naturally, creation mandates two objects the mediator (creator) and the target object" 

          Untrue.  Quantum mechanics is finding ever more particles being "created" with no sign of a creator.  It just happens.  And then "unhappens", again with no "destroyer".  It would be fallacy of the highest order to declare that because a creator is needed in other experiences in other circumstances it is also needed in the case of these subatomic particles.  Or the big bang.

          1. 0
            riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Creation is a verb(to create), an action imparted by a mediator object(say object A) on a target object(object B) to produce a new object(object C). So how an object suddenly appearing out of nothing becomes creation?
            Logical fallacy - Fallacy of Equivocation.

            If you know 'quantum mechanics' then pray tell how nothing suddenly attain length, width and height to become a "particle"? Or is it "virtual" particle?
            So when did "quantum mechanics" find? Or is it proposed in QM?

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And a fine definition it is...for times years past.  It no longer works so well as we gain new knowledge in the field of physics.

              Knowledge you will have to find far outside my own limited database.  Alas, all I can do is parrot what more learned people tell me, for I have never seen such a particle pop either into nor out of existence and certainly have no knowledge of how such a thing can happen.  (Actually, I believe I'm in good company here - it seems that no one at all understands the mechanism of such action.)

              1. 0
                riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Mr. Bukhari is also doing the same, parroting those people whom he thinks as learned. Just as you are unable to explain he too is not able to, so why blame or contradict him?


                And logic is not physics. Meaning of words do not change because scientists discovered new things. That will be doing the same stuff atheists accuse theists do - using logical fallacies.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  True.  You can either quote the words of someone from 2,000 years ago that hadn't a clue how the universe works and so assigned it to a make believe god or you can quote the works of someone that has studied the question for a lifetime.  Either could be right, either or both could be wrong, but I know where I'll put my money in picking an answer.

                  If the meaning of the word does not change, we'll need a new word to describe "creation" in the sense of a noun.  What would you suggest?

                  1. 0
                    riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Life time? The priests are also studying for a life time and I know a priest who has a doctorate in theology though I have no idea what they are studying or how.
                    I will be putting my money on people who talk sense and rationally explain and won't put my money neither on priests nor your Quantum physicists for all of them are using logically fallacies and simply redlining and then talk nonsense, they try to fit reality to maths(or god) rather than the other way round.

                    Creation is a noun derived from a verb, the root is still a verb. Generate will be a good term, but I'll not attempt because the "virtual particles" are 'virtual' in reality and is proposed to make the calculations right. No one has seen or no one is able to tell how nothing turns into something. All the time they take 'nothing' as something. Nothing is nothing, not an actor in any intercourse between objects.

  3. 0
    riddle666posted 3 years ago

    Based on this, does god proves its self creation? If not, who created god?

    So what is the basis of this assertion that universe is created? Universe is neither self created nor created by a creator. Indeed, Universe is not created at all.

    Out of curiosity, do you understand the meanings of the words you use?
    Do you understand the difference between logic and ration?

    1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      riddle 666, wilderness. How my premises no 1 is wrong ? I am not saying ''every thing is creation'' I am saying '' Everything is a  creation [noun] that never proves its self creation '' .It is not opinion it is common observation and logical conclusion  that every thing that never proves its self creation is a creation, it defines the creation and excludes self creation and every thing that will prove self creation will not be creation , What is false in this premises  , my dear , in accordance with your ''logic'' Is this is against observation? ''Is this is against experiment? ''Is this is not logical conclusion'' .If you say universe is not creation nor self crated'',you have no scientific evidence for the same,every thing is creation or existence that never proves its self creation or self existence , we have not proved such a self created or self existing universe therefore logical conclusion is that this'' existence''or ''creation'' is possible only by a creator . Parents are not creators parents are cause of creation , You have not scientifically and logically proved the self creation or self existence of universe now how can you conclude logically that there is no creator , this is false conclusion .existence or creation not proving its self existence and its self creation logically conclude only a creator who has created or given birth this creation or existence , You must prove first self existence or self creation for logical conclusion of no God , otherwise, your conclusion will be illogical .

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        OK, misunderstanding in #1.  As I said, I had some trouble between noun and verb.  Or maybe I just confused myself.

        But.  #4, "Every creation is created by creator" is completely without basis in fact.  You repeat the fallacy in this post, saying "we have not proved such a self created or self existing universe therefore logical conclusion is that this'' existence''or ''creation'' is possible only by a creator"  Paraphrasing, "We are ignorant of just how this creation was done, so it has to be a god that did it" - once again, using ignorance as a reason to declare something to be true.  It still doesn't work.  If you wish to use ignorance, best to use the other side of the same coin: "We cannot prove God created us, so to the best of our knowledge there was no creator".  Indeed, this statement is even true if we define the creator as God.

        If my parents did not create me by combining two of their own cells, then who did (include statements from the creator, photos or videos of the process or other firm factual information.  No saying "We don't know, so it was a god")

        I do not conclude there is no creator; I have made it abundantly clear that I don't know if there was one or not.  Neither do you, in spite of claims to the contrary.  In all the thousands of years mankind has been around not a single person has been able to prove the existence of any god.  If you DID know, you would be able to prove it, without drawing fallacious conclusions from self professed ignorance.

        1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          wilder, Creator is not result of our ignorance about creation of universe, it is essential and logical conclusion of universe not proving its self creation or self existence , we are bound to conclude the same under our present and available observation until new discovery  about universe changes our knowledge and confirms that universe is self created , ''In given and available circumstances we will conclude the same as science does and subsequently  with the changing knowledge change its ideas . Therefore, there is no fallacy you are pointing, universe not proving its self existence and self creation conclude its dependence upon creator for its existence for the time being . The universe is creation or existence until we prove it self existent  or self created , it is our knowledge and observation for the time being, it is not ignorance, here you are at fault holding that our observation for the time being as ignorance . Who is creator it is second question, how can we define him it is second question but creation not proving its self creation is proving a creator. Parents are not creators as they are themselves creation .Creator must be self creator or self existent ent, if universe will prove so it will be creator but according to our present knowledge , it is not proving itself as a creator therefore, our this knowledge concludes that that there must be creator .

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry - that the universe does not prove it's self creation to your satisfaction does not mean god did it.  It means that you don't know if it self created - that we are all ignorant of how it happened.  An ignorance which you insist means that a god did it, but indicates no such thing.

            Exact same logic sequence:  If creator does not prove it created the universe, then the universe self-created.  In addition, the creator you propose that created us has not proven self-creation of itself and therefore has a creator itself; a greater god that created god.  And so on, ad infinitum.

      2. 0
        riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Self creation is a contradiction, I did ask whether you understand what you speak?
        My question is simply this, on what basis did you say whether everything is a creation, irrespective of whether it proves or not?
        If god is a thing, does god proves its self creation?

        Yes, it is against observation, we do not see "creation ex nihilo", but only assembly.
        Please make this understandable.
        Existence is not "proved" but defined.  A creator is illogical, but existence of matter is a fact, I hope you know this much.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Allow me to sum his argument up in a more simple fashion.

          "There is definitely a god. Please prove there is not."

          1. 0
            riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            smile, it appears so.

          2. sibtain bukhari profile image62
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Mark knowles,riddle 666, wilder, you all are arguing '' we presuppose a self created and self existent universe, prove your God .''tongue

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And this would be why religion always causes conflict. sad

            2. 0
              riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What is this "self created" or "self existent'"? Existence do not need any help, neither self nor from others. Existence is existence, by definition.

              1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                riddle 666,you are defining  ''existence'' as ''self existence'' as'' existence'' not requiring the help of self or from any other for its existence is actually ''self existence'' , therefore, you have presupposed self existence of existence and have defined it as self existence , this is the fallacy of your logic , pl. separate the two concepts for logical conclusion .

                1. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Please convert this to English.

              2. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                riddle 666, ''self created''  and ''self existent'' means ''creator of himself'', ''creator of his existence'' '' existence or self having no creator except himself'' '' existence or self came into being himself without external actor ''

                1. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  And still you cannot understand that this as a contradiction? Or is it that you don't understand the meaning of "contradiction". A thing has to first exist for it to create and if that thing already exists, if it was created, it was created by something else. Can you see your contradiction now - "self creation" is a self refuting nonsense?
                  You are continuously telling me that universe if not self created but is created by a creator. I never said universe is self created, I said universe is NOT created.
                  And please define exist and universe(and time too) that I can understand what you are speaking about.
                  And creation and existence are not synonyms but entirely different words.

        2. sibtain bukhari profile image62
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          riddle 666,I am not saying every thing is creation my dear, I am saying that creation must prove its self creation to avoid creator and if it does not , then it depends upon creator for its existence, where is fallacy ? I am not presupposing that God exists as you are presupposing that universe is not creation or existence. I do not want to suppose any thing and applying my logic only in the light of observation , my observation and knowledge concludes that universe has failed to prove its self creation or self existence, you mean I will again suppose that there is possibility that in future we become successful for proving self existence or self creation therefore, it will be ignorance to conclude that universe has a creator, It means you are not applying logic you are simply presupposing the self existence of universe and upon the basis of this belief you are arguing and declaring that my premises are false ,we must not presuppose for application of logic .

          1. 0
            riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Do you expect earth or sun or moon to prove? On what basis do you say "creation"? Only a human can prove or disprove. So what is the meaning of "creation must prove self creation"? Either a thing is created or not. Creation is either, ex nihilo, ex materia or ex deo(All are irrational - nothing to do with logic, only ration). Self creation is an ontological contradiction it is like saying 'child is the father of himself', may be poetic but has no meaning. Things exist -fact. Now you explain rationally or reach a conclusion based on valid premises, can you?

            I am not 'presupposing'? It is a conclusion because things exists and all creations are irrational.
            But logic needs "true premises" to reach a conclusion and ration needs supposition(hypothesis) to reach a theory.
            What do you expect, that Universe comes to you as a person to prove to you? Are you telling me that universe has not told you, that is why say all these?
            I am not supposing, I am stating a fact, "Things Exist", and we are analyzing all the scenarios for a probable explanation to explain the presence of things.
            Or we will analyse logically, your premise is a self refuting premise, so the logic becomes invalid. "creation must prove its self creation" We are not talking about "creation" but universe. So "universe must proves its self creation", but universe is not a person, but a concept -objects+space, so it is you who have to prove or disprove.

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              riddle 666,you are not supposing that universe exists , this is observation of all , you are supposing that universe self exists without having logical and scientific evidence to the effect of same ,therefore , you are concluding that universe being self existence is not created by a creator , consequently, you are falsely supposing the self existence of universe and your rejection of creator is upon the basis the same .I f universe exists simply ,then it is self existence or it has been created ,only two possibilities are there, you have not proved self existence, therefore, only one possible conclusion we have and that is creator has created the universe . This is very simple, clear, and visible logic which how may be rejected .?

              1. 0
                riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Do you understand English,  if so define exist objectively. I didn't say I will prove, that was your claim. I said creator is illogical(and the logic you put forward was not logic but positive claims) and creation is irrational, and as there are things and as creation in any form is irrational and hence impossible, we have to conclude that universe is eternal.  You understand 'eternal'?
                It is not if not "self created", then created, it is either "created" or "NOT created", that is whether universe is created or not created. Now you explain how universe is created. [Mind you this is ration and not logic, the only logical format is what I stated and to refute that you came up with a nonsense - concepts exist]. And if it is not created that means it is eternal not self created.
                Creation either by god or self is irrational that is they have inherent contradictions and hence cannot be true.

            2. sibtain bukhari profile image62
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              riddle 666, a man like you is questioning that ''how universe will prove its self creation and only man can do it '' this clearly reflects your confusion , obviously if universe is self created, it is creator and it must prove its self creation but it is not proving so therefore, this is the creation of a self creating. creator who is metaphysical being .

              1. 0
                riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                What is "universe"? From your conversation I understand we are speaking entirely different stuff.
                Universe is not self created,  in fact there are no things that are self created because "self creation" is a contradiction,  nonsense.
                Creation in any form is irrational. And universe cannot be created by any being because universe involves "space", that is nothing.  Nothing is not a thing to be created.

              2. 0
                riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Let's assume universe is creator, but why should it prove to a puny human?  Water can create stalagmites, but does water proves to you?
                Did mr.god prove to you?

        3. sibtain bukhari profile image62
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          riddle 666,Why are you supposing that God is a thing? if He is thing then he is part of universe, a creation, He is not God . Creator must be self existence or self creating but we have no observation or experiment of self creator or self existence for limitation of our reason  ,therefore, our logical conclusion is upon the basis of observation that universe not proving its self existence or self creation must be created ultimately by creator having self existence and upon our failure to observe or make experiment over self created or self existence creator how can we deny our logical conclusion of creator ? This conclusion will be proved logically false if you prove scientifically that universe is self existence or self creator, God or creator is not  required to be proved separately in the presence of a universe not proving self creation or self existence , this will itself prove a creator for its existence . The universe not proving its self existence is direct and tangible and logical evidence of existence of  God without having observation and experiment of God .

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            This doesn't actually makes any sense in English, but as far as I can tell this is what you said:

            1. God exists outside existence.
            2. The Universe exists, therefore it must have been created, because nothing can create itself.
            3. Except for god - god can create itself.
            4. Except god does not exist as we understand existence, it lives in a majikal non existent place where it can watch us in actual existence.
            5. Therefore goddunit.
            6. But - you don't have to prove god exists, because the only evidence of it's existence is the Universe.
            7. Therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

            And this is your logic?

            1. seoexprtm profile image60
              seoexprtmposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I just say one or two things and i don't follow this post so please don't reply me thanks
              first if you don't want to read about islam please don't say anything about islam.

              I read in this post some one say usa is right and some one say usa is wrong. how we can prove who is wrong who is right so I recently find a video who prove this thing... american women i don't know she is a muslim or not but she is absolutely an american women said... Check this video https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=522269981128238

              Every year thousands of people who live in america embrace islam  you can find this on internet check what Korean said http://www.siasat.pk/forum/showthread.p … TV-Channel

              for more information Check this video please please check full video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1HBc5iNyUI and read the full story here https://www.facebook.com/notes/islamic- … 6204477500

              and Thanks for reading this and please remember my words "if you don't want to read about islam please don't say anything about islam."

              Thanks

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                If you don't want me to express my disdain for Islam, don't promote it at me. Sorry. Tell you what - you stop spreading your irrational belief system - I will stop telling you it is nonsense.

                Do we have a deal?

            2. sibtain bukhari profile image62
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Mark Knowles, my logic is very clear, visible and simple, I do not need like you to suppose any thing, i do not know God ,I know universe, you can prove that universe has created itself or it exists by self, answer is not at all,then why you suppose its self existence against your evidence and logic ? therefore, why you not conclude logically, that as universe has not proved that it has created itself ,therefore, it is created by a creator ? I do not need to presuppose God, universe not proving its self creation is leading to the conclusion of a creator .

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry - your logic is unsound. I can prove Universe exist. We already have proven that the Universe has always existed. Now you claim there was a time when it did not? Please prove it.

                And also - please disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster at the same time.

                Thanks.

                1. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow! I still can't understand most of his arguments.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Neither can I, but this is a new one as well; that the universe is infinitely old.  Don't know as I've EVER heard that one!

                    Strange thread.

          2. 0
            riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Because if he is not a 'thing' then he is "nothing", so does not exist.

            Things exist, there is no "self" in the definition of exist. Self creation is nonsense, because something has to exist to create, so self refuting.  The rest of it I didn't understand.
            How does god do that while universe do not? Things exist by the definition of exist.
            I can answer if you convert this into english. In logic, only the premise is true or false, conclusion is either valid or invalid and logic is either sound or unsound. So saying 'logically false' is nonsense.
            Does god "prove self existence"?

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              riddle 666,How you have supposed  true this narrow minded material and illogical definition of ''exist'' ,  obviously, this definition will exclude meta physical being and will more prove the problem of limitation of our reason, it means we must close our eyes from limitations of our reason and must define every thing in light of perception  and when we are not capable to define God with in this material definition, we must reject the same as nothing, how much ridicule and childish'' logic'' it is ? you believe it true my dear ? or you consider it suitable easily to reject creator, therefore, support it? It is very difficult for  me to believe that an intelligent person  like you is convinced with such a logic ?

              1. 0
                riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Once more please define "exist" objectively. 'Metaphysical being' what is that?
                Things that exist is physical. Non physical are called concepts that which is inside our mind. So if your god is not physical then he is a concept, conceived by intelligent minds.

                1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                  sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Deleted

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    ''The existence is not existing by self ''

                    Difficult to read, but presume that your meaning is that nothing can exist by itself.

                    If so, that is not only unproven, but 100% or our knowledge (knowledge, not belief) is that the universe (to include everything in it) does indeed exist by itself. 

                    As it is the key premiss in the rest of the statements, they are unproven as well.

                    In instead your claim is that nothing can create itself, OR that everything in existence was created by something else, you have not show that to be true, either.

  4. Paraglider profile image90
    Paragliderposted 3 years ago

    Good morning, people. Believe it or not, I have just read this entire thread.
    Can I respectfully suggest that the wording of the following assertion is really an exercise in 'begging the question'
    "Everything is a creation that never proves its self creation"
    Suppose we replace it with this far more neutral formulation:
    "Everything that exists came into being"

    This immediately suggests a valid area for study: "By what mechanism(s) do things come into being?"
    We can then formulate testable (falsifiable) hypotheses. Logically, none of these can ever be proven absolutely true (for all time in every place). However most can be proven false by observed events that repeatably contradict the logically derived 'consequence set' of the particular hypothesis. Only such falsifiable hypotheses as have not yet been falsified might be true, but we can't know for certain.

    We can also formulate untestable, even mystical, explanations. Some of these might be psychologically satisfying, as they remove the uncomfortable feeling of ignorance, But declaring them true is a leap of faith that can never be logically justified.

    Induction was shown (by Hume) to be unsound and later (by Popper) to be unnecessary to Science.

 
working