THE PHILOSOPHY OF'' IBADAT'' [WORSHIP] IN ISLAM
His religion prevents him from speaking quietly about it.
Thanks , Islam is the religion of peace and love , be broad minded .
This is a community with certain rules and guidelines in relation to courtesy. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with them.
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.
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 .
Not according to many verses in the Quran, Allah is cruel an inhumane.
Any religion that has guidelines for war should be rejected.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 ,
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.
Human rights? Unless you are a woman wanting to wear a bikini. 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 .
Wonderful. Perhaps you should explain to Marte Deborah Dalelv that Allah was protecting her rights when she was jailed on a 16 month sentence for being raped. Or Alicia Gali, jailed for having illicit sex after being drugged and raped. Allah protected her rights, too, I assume.
After that you might explain to the schoolgirls killed, because they attended school without having a penis, that Allah protected their rights. Just what rights were protected I leave to you.
Moving on, you can explain to 13 year old Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, stoned to death because she was raped, just how Allah protected her human rights. Like the right to life.
Next you might visit Gulnaz, jailed with her child until she agreed to marry the child's father, who raped Gulnaz, resulting in pregnancy. Jailed again for illicit sex (for being raped) she either rots in jail or marries the rapist; explain to her how Allah is protecting her right to marry the man she loves.
You can finish up in the jail cell with Saeed Abedini, sentenced to 8 years for preaching Christianity, how Allah has protected his freedom of religion.
And when you are finished explaining to these victims of the Muslim religion how Allah has protected their human rights you might have a much better idea of just what Allah "protects" and what he doesn't.Dear Wilderness,be realistic, you have quoted some alleged individual examples of crimes of Muslim society and Muslim state in the name of religion against women which was responded and opposed by the majority of Muslims and upon the basis of the same you are creating the hypothesis that the religion it self is bad and Allah never protects the human rights , is this a logical argument,you have shaken my perception of ''intellectual ''and ''enlightened ''Europe by this type of argument , you mean I should argue like you that USA a ''civilized and human rights champion country'' being the only country in the world history to use atom bomb against the people and children of country of'' ignorant'' Asia ,therefore, I must declare the hole nation and religion of USA as criminal and brutal and ignorant like you , this is your argument my dear ?
Which majority? If the majority opposed why they had to be in jail? Why they had to close down schools for girls in Pakistan's NWFP? Why the women wear parda?
riddle 666, in reply of your post regarding majority 4 days ago , a minority of a class of Muslims is acting as extremist in the name of Islam and if you know history the most respectable pious caliph of all Muslims Imam Ali [as] , who was an authority in Islam after prophet and the same is regarded by all sects of Muslims, engaged war against extremist and terrorist group of that time named Kharjis who like the present terrorist were using Islam for their criminal activities and on the other hand were the sacred and practicing Muslims, the most of them never surrendered and were killed. Imam ALI [AS] regarded this success as most difficult and great one as the same was against the practicing Muslims , This group again never became powerful but after a long period such kind of group in the name of Islam is gathering sympathies and is working as extremist and terrorist . Parda or Hijab is Islamic and is adopted by the will of lady and in its true islamic form ,she may perform all activities gracefully .
And if you know history Muhammed himself used violence against the people of Mecaa and violence and human right violations are justified in quran. And we are discussing the present.
That is a simple lame excuse for male chauvinism, to treat women as property.
riddle 666, Not at all, prophet never made the use of violence, this is not my belief, this is from history and Quran never promoted violence , study again Quran with context, you will never find violence but peace. It is not logic to apply the verses of war to the general circumstances. we will have to find out the law of Quran regarding war and peace , it is clear from Quran that war is allowed only those who have been attacked and only in support of the subjects and even in the course of war the human rules are to be followed,further prophet forgave his all personnel enemies including Hinda,killer of his loving uncle, history can never present such example .
So was it with love than he won over the Mecca people when he came back from medina?
Context is what every religious fundamentals say to justify the violence in their books and to say their books are all love.
And even if there is nothing else(I am not saying there is nothing else) the simple reason that it ask women to use burqa isn't enough?
riddle 666,Hijab is for the protection of the honor of women and not for dominance of man and example for that is the role of the ladies of the family of prophet who were, traders, and great religious scholars , Hi jab never created problem for them .
Protection from whom? Do you think that there neighbours are out there to rape them?
It doesn't create problems because they were indoctrinated to believe that. Is there no honour for women who do not use burqa?
It is just another way of saying "you are my property".
riddle 666, Be rational my dear , what did West with the honor of women in the name of their rights, art and commercialism ? you know better than me and then you are asking this question ? Be realistic . Hijab is not problem in their working and daily activities then why it is making problem for you ? Exploitation of women may be with hijab or without Hijab. Hijab is symbol for their honour.
It is the old barbaric idea, women are my property and hence nobody should look at her.
According to your idea of honour, west has no honour. Asserting oneself and being independent is bad? Male chauvinism? And how does covering oneself from head to toe produce honour?
Why you do not want your men to have the same honour and cover themselves in burqa?
Treating half the race as a property is not a problem then what is a problem?
riddle 666,count pl. for how many times mecca attacked in Medina before the conquest of Mecca ? you have forgotten .
Who started it? You think the Mecca people should have kept peace when Muslims attacked their caravans?
Now will you believe me if I say I went to heaven on a golden flying monkey and talked with God and that god assured me that the only book attested by him is the king James version of bible and none else neither other editions nor quran nor the ahammaddiya's?
No, I have given examples of both women and men being grossly mistreated, with their human rights completely trampled, in the name of Allah's law. That the rest of the world finds it disgusting and horrible, applying pressure to stop the abuse, gives even more indication of Allah's "protection" (or lack thereof). Several of these cases have been forgiven, with the people released, but not all, and those that have been "pardoned" for their "crimes" can thank the world, not Allah or his followers.
Others still rot in jail, their rights still trampled by the Muslim community. Saeed, for example, is still there - for the crime of daring to have a different religion and worshiping someone other than Allah. He may be released one day - there is much pressure being applied by the brutal and ignorant US - but Allah seems to have no desire to protect his religious rights at all.
So you really do need to pull your head out of the sand, recognize that non-Islamic peoples have rights too, and understand what is commonly being done to innocent people in the name of Allah.wilderness, in reply to your three days ago post about human rights, I am agreed with you to the extent that non Islamic people have rights and understand what is being done to innocent people in the name of Allah and fully support you in this respect and this is not only being done with non Muslims but with moderate Muslims but I disagree wilt you that it is result of Islam , it is being done by a limited class of Muslims and bad name is being brought for all Muslims and Islam . The view of the majority Muslims and Islam is moderate and human .
And it is in the middle east countries that human rights originated and and is still practised and even now the Europeans are studying the rights especially from Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Mr. riddle 666,history is not changed by laughing,history is changed by reason, conscious,conscience,and morality ,if you have all these blessings of God ,you may change history like Islam .
Your religion, whatever it is, (you can argue the no true Scotsman fallacy as much as you like) is still a "religion", riddled with violence and nonsense [the word religion itself explains that(all Abrahamic religions are or were)]. Yes there was a time it was reasonable(even better than christianity), but now it is in the time corresponding to the dark ages of Europe(though, even before, you have stoned to death for blasphemy(What did Mansur Al-Hallaj do? or the Ahamadis?] and whatever you say there are no human rights[changing ones opinion, religion, is a human right too] practiced especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan's NWFP, especially for women and children and they are not 'isolated events' as you claim.
That exactly is what a religion lacks - reason and logic and only when religions are pushed out of the public sphere there will be reason. And history is non changed by reason but by emotions and fire power. All the religions shows that.
What god?
Change history? Genghis Khan all alone changed history without the blessing of any god, so?
Please stop lying at me. This is untrue.
Mark Knowles, is this a logical argument of residents of ''enlightened and civilized ''Europe ?
It is simply the truth. You are lying to me. Who said we were enlightened and civilized? We have simply moved on from barbaric, bronze age religious nonsense.
This is one step towards what I consider to be "enlightened and civilized." Until we have also moved on from burning fossil fuels and using money, I think we cannot call ourselves such.
Please stop lying, that is completely false as has already been shown to you that countries governed by Islam DO NOT agree with the Declaration of Human Rights.
Do you understand?
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.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 .
Any religion that has guidelines for war should be rejected, especially one that states war is a "requirement".
Mr.A Troubled Man , if it is so then every nation, country , continent should be rejected for being involvement in wars ? especially, the nations and continents involving in world wars ? This is your ''argument'' , my dear?
The problem is Islamists redefine war to suit their purposes. Thus anything that opposes Islam is considered an act of war and Islamists then feel free to kill infidels.
In response to one of your earlier posts, there is no religious freedom in Islam. Those who wish to walk away from Islam are labelled apostates and their lives are then at risk. It is illegal to spread alternative religions in most Islamic states. Many Islamic states have groups that wish to enforce Sharia law whether the people Muslim and non-Muslim want it or not.
Every time some mullah or Imam interprets Islamic law in such a way that somebody is oppressed, such as victims of rape being put in prison or being forced to marry the rapist, Islam has just denied someone their human rights.But...but...Allah protects the right of everyone to choose their religion! And the right of people, female or male, to marry as they wish!
Disappearinghead , The problem is that West takes the view of Islam in the light of the alleged acts of individuals and classes acting in the name of Islam without taking in to consideration the essence of Islam in the light of its sources and early history and make the hypothesis against the religion of Islam . This is not the proper way to understand Islam , The concept of religious freedom , wars and role of women are required to be understood in accordance with laws of ISLAM with its true spirit and wisdom.
But, we are living in the 21st century now, not the 7th.
Islam is understood by the words written in the Quran and the Hadiths, which is why it is rejected.
There is no religious freedom and no equal rights for women in Islam. However, it has caused wars.You just don't get it do you. Islam is and must be judged by those religious leaders who persecute apostates, infidels, and the victims of rape. When you call these crimes against humanity perpetrated by Islamists as 'alleged' you are either wilfully blind, ignorant or trying to create a smokescreen to cover up the embarrassing fact that Islam has no regard for the freedoms of conscience of the individual. You know full well what goes on in Islamic states but you try to steer the blame from Islam. You may say that these barbaric acts are not the essence of Islam as much as you want but the truth is those responsible do not agree with you. Why don't you call a spade a spade instead of dancing about making smoke screens? Islam is rotten to its core and the acts perpetrated in Islamic states is testament to its philosophy.
Is that even remotely similar to what I said? No, it isn't.
Any RELIGION that has guidelines for war should be rejected. Islam should therefore be rejected because it has guidelines for war.
Do you understand?A Troubled Man , I understand but I think you do not understand , therefore, are repeating the same sentence of argument without replying my question, my question was that if we suppose for the sake of argument that every religion with guidelines of war is to be rejected ,then we will have to reject every nation involved in war including Europe and USA , Consequently, the same is not possible as the war is the historical requirement of nations under exceptional circumstances, therefore, apparently, on face of history, your argument is contrary to logic and historically is not acceptable nor upon the basis of same , religion may be rejected .History will accept your argument only in the world where aggressions are not made but presently we are living in the world where aggressions are made , first create aggression free world then apply your argument .
That is as utterly ridiculous as it is fallacious, they are not even remotely the same thing.
Yes, I understand Muslims feel that war is a requirement because that is how Arabs have always settled their differences, with violence.
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!
Mr.riddle 666,A true religion like Islam is nothing but love, peace,conscious, conscience, reason and morality .
A "true" religion is nothing but nonsense and emotions. There is no reason nor morality but only a quest for power.
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 .
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.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 ...
That is an obvious lie.
Allah is obviously a man made god.If you think you can show with logic that Allah and no other god exists, please have at it.
Start with a provable assertion and proceed from there without using opinion. Only facts and logical deduction allowed. I'd wager the last dollar I have that you can't do it, but please take a stab if you think you can.
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.
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 .
Didn't I agree that there was a time when islam was better than christianity- before 1300 AD? That was a time Greeks were translated and preserved and when the Muslims behaved less fanatical and less religious.
Deductive logic is the only true logic as only in deduction you can assess validity and soundness and using the same logic we can know that there are no god/gods and if your religion propose gods it's illogical and not at all scientific.
And ancient science even though the precursor of science is not science (some Greeks are exceptions though)[And there were some brilliant mathematicians and physicians among Muslims(notably Persians while there is nothing from the cradle of islam) but we have to consider the fact that they got the numericals from India and surgery was also well developed(for the time) in India at that time though the indians were less concerned about these as they themselves were immersed in mysticism and superstitions and science and free thinking was suppressed after 1300AD] but that will not excuse the fact that their is nothing scientific in your religion(what happened to Al-Kindi?) and now your religion is one of the most important hurdles of science and human rights.Mr, riddle 666,I am thankful to you now you have come to the point and have admitted the contribution of some brilliant Muslim scientist ,further you admitted that early Muslims behaved less fanatical and less religious, I appreciate your study and views in this respect.It may be debateable that how Muslims developped the scientific concepts but how ever my view is that this is due to Quran where on every page almost an invitation for the application of reason, observation and senses and outer experience was given which ultimately affected Muslim mind and it revolted against the dominance of deductive reason of Greeks and began to understand inductive reason as important source of knowledge for dominance over nature .
I would have agreed but for the following reasons,
If Quran was the basic inspiration science should have sprouted equally or even better where it originated(Arabia) but no, most of the scientists were Persians and the rest Uzbeks and Egyptians.
If Quran was the inspiration science would have progressed even now and Muslims should have acted as a boost rather than a hindrance(remember what happened to Bamiyan Buddhas - though not science that is the attitude towards science unless it is weapon science{technology}).
Most of the Muslim scientists of yore were mathematicians and physicians and a few chemists and astronomers not physicist.
Avicenna got his inspiration from Aristotlean logic not from Quran.
Inductive logic is mostly guess work with no basis to test validity or soundness.
And lastly logic and ration is against any sort of god unless you are a pantheist or autotheist (which you are not claiming).riddle 666, good points but i try to explain; 1] Most of scientists were persian but their all work was in Arabic , therefore,the ISlamic or Arabic science has been termed and the same has not been termed as persian science 2]If the persian scientists had got the ideas under the influence of the land and civilization of Persia the same had been produced in persian language, therefore, it confirms that the work was under the Islamic and Arabic influence .3] It is also established that method of scientific inquiry drived by Alhazen was from the experimental view of Quran and change of ideas regarding central position of Earth contrary to Aristotle by Razi was due to critic of Ghazali over the Greeks and also from the word'' worlds'' mentioned in Quran which affected the central position of Earth .These are some examples. 4]The effect and contribution of Shiite Islam in this respect also can never be overruled as the centre for the same was subsequently , Iran and Iraq and the branches of knowledge go to Imam Ali [as] the first imam of shiite Islam and subsequently one Imam from his race namely Jafer sadiq [as] first of all raised the objection over the ideas of Aristotle in respect of position of Earth and then this process continued . 5] After the complete downfall of Muslims , fundamentalism and extremism grew and stopped the progress in this respect ,Further this was the period when Muslims were being subjected by colonialism .
An Indian at present write mostly in English, does that make his writing christian? They were simply using the most dominat language of their times, nothing islamic about it.
No, on the otherhand, if the ideas were islamic NOT ONLY persion but every Islamic nation should have come up with ideas.
The duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and,.. attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency. Alhazen. It was established that the he established scientific method not scientific method from quran, that is a wild extrapolation. Nothing to do with being Islamic, you are basing an argument used by christians that earlier scientists were christians, they just happened to be christians /muslims because that is the religion of the land they were just born into it.
Yes, but that shows that it was not religion that made the progress but the freedom that arose by being the ruler. The moment they are subjugated , the freedom is lost and progress arrested. So it shows that it was the freedom and the self government and not islam that made the progress possible.
riddle, 666, it is not so , my dear, WHY a new nation inspired by Islam will contribute in science through arabic , a foreign language for them , and not one or two scientists but all scientists, therefore, this is very strong evidence of inspiration from Quran , their religious work may be in arabic why there scientific work is in arabic ? and especially, when you are presuming that they were inspired by their persian background , consequently, it rejects your hypothesis that as most of the Muslim scientists were persian therefore, origin of their work is some where else .
Why do the whole world now writes in English, that is a foreign language. The language of the common man of my nation was hindi, but the language of the educated was Sanskrit(I am talking about ancient times) and most people wrote not in the language of common man but the language of the learned - the foreign language which the common man couldn't understand. Have you read tolstoy's novels, the aristocratic characters speak french(no Tolstoy do not translate it). It also helps that the language of education was Arabic. . Got the gist? [And some Persains indeed wrote in Persian.]
It is not Persian or Islam that inspired but the availability of freedom, when men got freedom to think without hindrance they thought and when freedom was stifled they didn't. And that was specifically why Europe took 1500 years after Romans for science to develop.
riddle 666, it is not simply my argument, it is established by history written by western writers that Muslims are founder of the modern method of scientific inquiry but on the other hand what happened with scientists by christian church we know , further, it is also clear that after 30 years of Islamic model of govt ,kingship was established and that continued, therefore, the credit of scientific contributions can never be given to these rulers, however, they allowed facilities in this respect .
"Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough" ~ Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen)
riddle 666,at that time arabic language was not international language like English in present time, therefore this example is not suitable,further ,English was followed for the reason that all the scientific work was in already in English but Arabic language at that time had no already scientific work , therefore, why Persians will be bound to follow the same? We can never deny the importance of freedom in respect of knowledge but deviation of Muslims from the deductive source of Greeks to inductive source after the criticism of Imam Jafar Sadiq and Imam Ghazali gave birth the modern methed of science .
You are wrong on both counts, English is not the world language not because it is the scientific language(Newton wrote in Latin) but it was the conquerors language. As it became the world's dominant language scientists adapted it for better communication with each other.
Arabic language also was the conquerors language. It was the Abbasid's court language and it was the language that linked all the Islamic world.
Freedom not as you use(When women are put behind curtains, you still say there is human rights), Omar Khayyam was an agnost. What happened to the later free thinkers and sufis? It was the stifling of thought by the vanquished Islam that stifled the science and the sense of freedom by the confidence that arose as a conqueror that gave science its prominence in the earlier time.
If it was Islam that gave rise to scientific thinking, as it is the second common religion, scientists should have been very common among muslims, but alas only a very few muslims are scientists.
Still let us, for argument sake, agree that the new ideas (though the ideas were familiar to them in the form of Jewish bible and nestorian heresy and christian bible and there was nothing new) presented by islam acted as an encouragement to scientists, but that does not change the fact that today islam is one of the biggest hurdles of science and the one of the worst human rights abuser and those islamic authorities derive their authority from the quran..
riddle 666, I am sorry , you are talking upon the basis of presumptions and not of history , it is established by Western historians that Islam is the founder of the method of inductive reason in the history of world, this achievement alone is so great that Islam must have pride over the same, it is interesting that you are arguing that negative things of Muslims are due to Islam and positive things are not due to Islam, and it is more interesting that the positive development of science was made in early Islam when Islam, as a religion. was more powerful than the period when extremism and terrorism were conducted in the name of Islam , only on this sole ground the facts are clear .
Inductive logic is just guess work and not proper logic. And it was not islam or quran that is the basis but philosophers and they could philosophize only because the clutch of islam was not as heavy as it is now. All religions are negative, they want to stifle thought and ask blind obedience. Blind obedience never produced science neither in islam nor in christianity nor any religion. The golden period of islam was its first 700 years, and 700 years passed from that time. And you in your zeal to applaud islam forgot that what you say have no logic though you are repeatedly arguing that there is logic. Your inability to state the logic but your vehemence that ther is logic itself make clear that islam do not allow you to think properly[it is the case with all religions].
Why did extremism arose in islam? Because it is a religion that encourages extremism. Why there is no science in islam for the last 700 years, because it turned more islamic. When it becomes less islamic you get science.
riddle 666,all terminology of science was in English, my dear, and progress of developing countries was not possible without adopting English as language, otherwise subjects are generally against the foreign and conqueror's language as in India where after Aligarh Movement Muslims compelled to learn English but the same was not with Arabic at that time as it had no terminology of Science but as Persians have converted to Islam and were excited to learn from this new religion, therefore,they studied the Quran not only as a religious Book but as a book of knowledge of universe as Quran has stated that every thing is written in this book and has emphasized over learning of all type of knowledge not only religious knowledge and the same sayings of prophet were available, therefore, they studied Quran and found it different from Greek point of view, therefore, critized and drived a new scientific method .
Terminology in science was Latin and Greek, only when english became a popular language science started adopting english(it also was helpful that there were more philosophers and scientists in england).
You think they had a choice for not studying quran? every Muslim is mandated to study quran and it was the language of education at that time, hence the scientists studied islam. And the Abassid's itself were Arabic. But in the later periods all persian writings were in persian.
riddle, they were so advised by Quran and prophets,s sayings to learn Quran and nature by observation and outer experience as on every page almost Quran was inviting for applying reason to nature and beliefs .
I didn't understand what you are trying to say.
But what I know for sure is that if reason is applied everything that is said in quran about god will be irrational and if observation of nature is applied most of the rest would be too. And historically the stories of Abraham moses and jesus are myths.
riddle 666, you want to say that Muslims were away from Islam in early period when they contributed in Islam and they were close to Islam in later period when they never contributed ? here your logic is reversing , my dear, Muslims must be more Islamic in early period when effect of new religion was present and they must be more un Islamic in latter stage , what is this logic, you are supporting my point of view .
You know that science improved only after islam was well established, after 700 AD?
It was when they gained confidence and try to experiment and had free thoughts. That was an age where fundamentalists were a rarity. Even a little later timur had no qualms in killing Muslims and used islam only for his advancement and compare to the present times were most muslims are obeying it to the letter and now you are saying that people were more pious then than now. Just see turkey it improved only when religion was pushed to the back seat instead being in the driving seat.
Or if you want an earlier one, the first mogol emperors were less fanatical (Akbar even created a new religion) while the last major one Aurangazeb was the only fanatic one among the great mogols.
Though I say this again and again you somehow fail to see this, it is not religion that make progress in religion but freedom and the confidence that arose from it. The moment the freedom is lost, the moment there is uncertainty humans will turn to religion and push science out.
Mr, riddle 666, reason rejects man made gods but accepts God and this is Islam, gods are illogical, God is logical , this is the evolution of the human ego, therefore, Islam and every religion of one real God contributed in development of human conscious which ultimately resulted in the present progress and freedom of man, this contribution of religion was great as the old world was the world of gods and Ibrahim [as] was the first in the known history to raise voice against gods and Jews were first nation having belief in one God amongst the nations of gods, the great message of Jesus was also the same , Muhammad [pbuh] again focused on this message and man got freedom from the gods of race, nationalism, nature, matter etc. This was a great role of religion .
You keep saying this (logic shows god) but steadfastly refuse to show the logic you use. Is there a reason for that?
wilderness, try to understand my point of view ,please, reason accepts God but reason can never prove God like a theory or experiment because of its limitation and because of God being unconfined , Conscious of God is in our mind our soul our heart ,we can never deny it but our reason tells us that its scope is limited and it may presume all things as to be reality coming under its perception or conception , it can never go beyond and has no unconfined scope ,therefore, if we demand from this limited reason to make experiment over God who is unconfined ,it will be irrational and ridicule and upon the basis of this irrational and self conflicting argument existence of God can never be denied .Our reason recognizes God, accepts him but can never prove him like a theory in a laboratory , this is complete and true statement according to my point of view ,
No, reason accepts that which can be shown to be true. It is the function of emotion to entice us to accept something as true which cannot be shown to be so. This is why I so questioned your statement that logic (reason) can prove God - it cannot be shown and so reason rejects God. Only the emotional side of us can accept it.
As far as being consciously aware of God, well, it just isn't so. If God is within us He resides in the heart, the emotions, we have. Not within our center of reason. That should be self evident as reason cannot show Him to be anywhere at all.
Reason cannot recognize God, cannot accept him, because it cannot show Him to be true. One must use emotions and desire coupled with imagination to "show" God. Reason rejects the notion.
wilderness, reason never rejects God, reason accepts God but reason can never encircle God because of its limitation ,why are you avoiding to accept limitation of reason ? we have no other explanation of universe except one God because all other explanations are based over series of chances resulting in evolution and series of accidents for all these creations ,only one God, one supreme scientist explains the unity of universe , the great evolution of life [if we suppose this theory true], unlimited universe and creatures, and all scientific laws including laws of nature, energy, genes , evolution etc.
Wrong question. The correct question is why you continue to declare that reason accepts an answer with no evidence? Reason does not behave that way; reason requires evidence, if not solid proof. Ignorance ("we have no other explanation of universe") is neither, and neither is any imagined god/scientist that created the universe. Without evidence reason will always reject any answer but until that evidence is found reason says "No".
Imagination, desire and emotion leaps at such an answer, and especially when it makes the person happy will nearly always declare it to be true. You have imagined such and answer, it fits what you would like to believe and that pleases you. It must be true then. Reason, demanding evidence, is shuttled into a quiet corner of the mind, there to remain until death or until you are forced to give up imagined answers in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
As that evidence will never be found (one cannot find evidence of something defined as undetectable) you will forever believe your imagination. Reason remains in the corner, forbidden to raise the ugly voice asking for evidence.
You may have given up on the declaration that logic will show Allah, but reason and logic go hand in hand. You have merely changed the name of the process without changing the actual process. It doesn't work.
wilderness,what is scientific evidence ? universe,life and scientific laws are evidence of what ? all these are creation of ignorance ? science of universe is discovered by great minds but the same are created by ignorance ? this is your argument and ''scientific '' explanation of universe , my dear? if you have any other reasonable explanation of this universe better than one supreme scientist and God then explain it with out chances, accidents ? How can we close our eyes from universe, man , life , laws and creatures ? How can we presume that our reason has no limitations and may have full knowledge of God , how can we apply the laws of mechanics upon creator ? therefore, reason accepts God upon the basis of these evidences but can never test Him because of its limitations and just for the reason that our reason can never test the God how we may reject God overviewing all these evidences and limitations of reason ?
Evidence must be repeatable, testable and observable by all. A "feeling" of God inside, for instance, is none of these. That the earth exists is evidence...that it exists. Not of how it came to be. That a man with cancer is cured is evidence...that sometimes cancer is cured. Not how it happened.
How can we close our eyes to earth and animals? Keep them open, but that does not provide evidence of Allah, just that animals exist.
As you refuse to do it, allow me to gather your arguments and evidence of Allah:
1. You have claimed that because chance was involved in creation that explanation is false.
2. You don't understand evolution so it must be false.
3. You ask questions such as "how can we apply the laws of mechanics upon creator ", calling it evidence.
4. You claim there is no other possible explanation but Allah.
Therefore:
There is another universe, populated by a single omnipotent, omniscent intelligent creature that a man living 2500 years ago claims to have created the world. This you call reason.
But it isn't reason. Making the claim that no chance was involved in creation doesn't make it true as you cannot prove it. It just says that you make the claim. Ignorance of intimate details of evolution or anything else is evidence of ignorance but nothing more. Questions are not evidence of Allah - they, too, are evidence of ignorance and nothing more. The claim that there is no other explanation is false; at most you can truthfully claim that you know of no other possibility - once more using ignorance as evidence. Your conclusion (Another universe that contains Allah) was made up from imagination, and you offer zero evidence that it is true. Certainly, claims of ignorance (true or not) do not produce a logical conclusion.
But you know all of this; certainly you do not apply this kind of "reasoning" to everyday problems or you could not turn on the computer to type your posts. The answer to "why doesn't my computer turn on?" for instance, isn't "Allah" or "I don't know" but "because the dog unplugged it". If you stopped, as you have here, with "Allah" or a declaration of ignorance you would never get the computer running. So please, apply your normal reasoning abilities to the question of Allah instead of imagination and desire that it be so - you will learn a great deal both about the world and about yourself.Can you place your arguments in the proper logical format?
wilderness, the fallacies of Atheists are as under; 1 Their proposition is wrong ; ''Reason can never prove God '' [False proposition] ''Reason is not capable of proving God '' [Correct proposition ] 2]Their conclusion is wrong ; ''Reason can never prove God therefore, God never exists '' [False conclusion] ''Reason can never prove God , therefore, we can never believe God for the time being'' [ Correct conclusion from a false proposition ] 3] ''Reason can never prove God therefore, absence of God is established '' [ false conclusion] 4]''Reason can never prove God therefore, presence of God is not established ,[ correct conclusion from false proposition ] 5] ''Every perception by inductive reason and every concept by deductive reason is reality and truth ,'' [false conclusion] 6]''Every perception by inductive reason and every concept by deductive reason is reality for science and philosophy but it may be true or false ''.[ correct conclusion] 7] '' Only deductive and inductive reason is to be used for understanding the reality of universe '' [false proposition] '' All sources of knowledge are to be used for understanding the realty of universe '' [correct statement]
There is no logic here, or don't you know 'logic'?
The only fault I find with your statements is the first one; comparing it to the second one we can see that the first one is true. If reason is incapable of proving god, then it cannot do it.
However. Not a single one of the statements has anything at all to do with using logic and/or reason to prove God. They are all about being unable to prove God. You have shown that you understand logic - now back up your statement that you can use it to prove God.
wilderness, Existence of Earth is evidence of creator because we know earth can never be self created , existence of man and animals are evidences of creator because we know that these things can never be self crated . creation always will be evidence of creator ., We are closing eyes from all these things because we are not finding creator out of these creations . You never got my point about ignorance ,when we suppose this unlimited universe of scientific laws is created by chances of evolution and and nature or by nothing without any supreme scientist , it would mean we are supposing that scientific universe has been created by ignorance , how knowledge may be created by ignorance , how genetic code may be formed by nothing ?, these scientific laws and instructions over genes demand a supreme scientist, science can never be discovered by ignorant people but the same may be creation of ignorance? this is your rational and logical idea , my dear ?
Strange. We have proof that man and all life on earth came into existence through evolution. The only thing left to be proven is the original spark of life. Surely you are not denying evolution - are you?
Irrational conclusion. Do you know what "creation" means?
??? Please write this in english.Sorry - existence of earth is NOT evidence of Allah. We do NOT know the earth cannot self-create, and indeed the premier physicists of the world are on record saying that it can. A claim that no other physicist has even addressed, let alone proved wrong.
Same for plants and animals; there is absolutely no evidence they cannot self-create. Once more, ignorance of the exact method does not mean it is impossible any more than ignorance of the methods used by Allah (wave of the hand, mental exertion, a planet full of machinery, whatever) is evidence that it was not done that way.
"these scientific laws and instructions over genes demand a supreme scientist" Nice statement; now can you back it up with something beyond "it can't happen otherwise" or "I don't know how it happened"? Lay out your logical statements, using observable facts as a premise, and show the statement to be a true one.
Science (the scientific method plus all the knowledge gained from it) WAS discovered by ignorant people. We were ignorant of all of those facts until discovered. However, ignorance cannot create knowledge, just opinion. Ignorance can find knowledge, but not create it, if you understand the difference.
wilderness, H ow do you believe your self? can you prove your self , not at all because here is again problem of reason , reason can can give evidence of self but it can never prove in a test tube . your self is ''unseen'' but we believe in our selves or unseen because we have experience of it and our whole structure of life is standing over it , if we do not believe in ourselves ,we will become abnormal ,therefore, self and and God are not theories or experiments but our experiences , we experience God and self and we have indirect evidence for the same , problem of atheists is that they have belief of reason and when creator is not proved in laboratory they consider it sufficient for disbelief , they must come above of the reason must discover its limitations which are established by scientists . Therefore, atheism is an attempt to creat a belief of absence of God upon the basis of abstract reason .
wilderness, God is not imagination as imagination can never create universe, life ,animals and man , imagination has no basis , no evidences , no reasoning but God is not being seen but his creation his power his signs and his work is being observed, therefore, I say that atheism it self has a god and that is reason , go beyond reason and find the creator of reason ,
Any idea what you are saying? Who said that the universe is created?
We can see that the Islamist propagandist will fabricate any lie they wish no matter how much it contradicts their own words, let alone facts and theories. They will tell us that reason is the product of Allah, along with every other scientific theory and every fact, yet they will wholeheartedly deny and reject one of the most successful theories and facts ever presented; evolution.
They will state that Allah is the ultimate scientist, but will deny evolution and are incapable of telling us why Allah didn't impart one of the most important facts about humans to Muhammad, that of how we all evolved from simple beginnings, but instead will tell us that Allah created us from mud in the form we are today, because that is what Allah told Muhammad.
If Allah was indeed the ultimate scientist and did impart that information to Muhammad, then we can conclude Muhammad was a liar.You are correct in that imagination cannot create the universe or anything else but ideas and concepts. You are incorrect, however, in stating that that the universe, life, etc. is his work we can observe; while you assign those things to Allah, there is no evidence and certainly no proof that he is involved at all. Just your opinion that he is.
It is a common logical fallacy for the believer to claim that atheism has a god, but a god is not a method of reasoning. A god is a material thing from another universe that created this one - not a thought process. It may or may be material as we know such things, but it is NOT a thought process.
Note: a part of our disagreement may be that you are assuming I am an atheist; that I declare there is no god. That is untrue; no rational, thinking being would make such a declaration any more than they would declare that there is a god. Neither statement has any evidence whatsoever to back it up and cannot reasonably be made.
Mark Knowles, what is evolution, genetic variations and record of some fossils that confirms genetic variations and further record of fossils that 40000 years ago, accidentally a species of having the brain of size equal to the present man was evolved, nothing more , if it is proved that modern form of life is through evolution and record of all the species and genetic variations is established, even then it how can prove nonexistence of God, it proves the wisdom of God that how H e , the supreme scientist , through evolution created man like great creature of reason , conscious and conscience and how he protected this process of great evolution from all types of dangers , therefore, evolution, if proved is another undeniable evidence of creator .
Evolution has been proven and it certainly disproves the notion of a creator, because it is absolutely not being controlled. I suppose it doesn't actually disprove the notion of a creator who started things and then left it to get on with it, but - that is not what you are claiming.
Now - given that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and modern man has been here for just 40,000 years or so - how do you explain this ? 4.5 billion years to "create" talking monkeys? Doesn't seem to make any sense - logically, I mean. Does it?
You keep saying "undeniable evidence," when I think you mean "your personal belief." Please use the correct words to avoid confusion.
Mark Knowles, Evolution is not established law of science,it is developing theory of science depending upon genetic variations and record of fossils but as atheists consider it in their favour, therefore, they, emotionally try to establish that it it is proven.How atheists suppose that evolution rejects existence of a creator ? Obviously,every new scientific law will establish the the existence and greatness and wisdom of the creator .
It is both a fact and scientific theory. Evolution clearly has no use for a creator - in fact - if you think there was a developmental destination we must discard everything we understand about evolution. And dear me, what a roundabout way to go about creating us. 4.5 Billion years? If I was all powerful, I could have done it in a day.
Sorry. Please stop lying to me. Thanks.We already know that, evolution is not a law, it is a theory and a fact.
Once again, you are just fabricating lies to defend your religion, which is why we reject Islam, Allah and the greatest deceiver of all, Muhammad.
riddle 666, if you know logic ,pl. explain the logical explanation of universe without interference of Creator ?
riddle 666, you have asked about creation, my dear, every thing is creation until it proves that it is self created ,therefore, Atheism must prove that universe is self created to negate it as an evidence of creator .Further let me correct your mistake, I never stated that reason may prove God like a theory or experiment , I stated that reason accepts God as it has the evidence of universe but it is not capable to prove God by testing this evidence in laboratory because it has limitations and God has no limitations,. Further , universe is indirect evidence for us but our self is direct evidence of God and we may experience him like self , we have conscious of God, therefore, riddle, you can never escape from creator as if you will close your eyes to avoid the evidence of universe your self will recall Him .
So logic and reason dictate that if we don't know for sure if something was created by Allah or by itself (or by nothing but the laws of probability) the correct and truthful answer is that Allah did it. Ignorance means Allah.
I don't think so...rather it is a total failure of whatever it is that you call reason OR logic. Not unusual, though - ignorance does seem to be the most common reason to believe the myth. We don't have any other answer known to be true (or don't want to accept what we DO know) so goddunnit.Creation in any form is nonsense, by creator or self creation. So you do not understand what "creation" means, do you?
Why should atheism prove 'universe is self created' when universe is not created at all, neither by god nor self.
Reason cannot accept god, only a human can and that should be based on valid reasons not subjective experiences or biases. And you have not yet shown how 'reason accepts god'. Evidence is what you make of it, a subjective opinion. I didn't ask you to test god, I asked to say what god is or how creation is rational or logical. If god is a nonsense idea, if god cannot be tested then what do you mean by god? Do you want me accept you because "you said it"?
We have no consciousness of god other than what is taught us by our parents. What we have is belief in authority and a mind that sees pattern.
Nothing you say here has any truth in whatsoever, quite the contrary. There is no logic in any gods and that includes Allah. There is no logic in any religion and the includes Islam.
We understand that everything you say here is based on your irrational religious beliefs and has no basis in reality.
Muhammad was a liar, plain and simple.A Troubled Man , mind your language, you have made contemptuous remark against our Prophet , delete it otherwise I will have to report to admin of this page, you must first learn ethics of discussion and criticism, make disagreement with others ideas and criticize them but not abuse the person of others or ideas, I am surprised from where you have received education.?
Unfortunately, the time has expired for me to edit that post.
That makes me curious,
I presume you take what Muhammad said as true, so what made you believe a man whom you have never even seen?
riddle 666, it is a ridicule question, we have record of history, we have reason, conscious,conscience and observation, therefore we easily come to this conclusion that prophet Muhammad [pbuh] is obviously true.
This is not a reasonable academic argument. Please at least make an attempt to debate instead of repeating the same nonsense over and over again. Thank you.
To which comment are you responding?
History of what?
Reason you have not yet stated.
Muhammad is true about what?
My question was very simple, "why did you believe him when he said he went up in a flying horse and saw god?" There history, reason and observation(did you observe it?) is not with you. I do not know what conscious conscience got to do with it.
Show the logic. Reason rejects every god/gods(except pantheism and autotheism), and all gods are man made.
An unsubstantiated claim. It is only when the religion is pushed back humans progressed. No god contributed to human consciousness and the present day gods are not more than 3500 years old.
All mythological figures unsubstantiated by history. Jews is the first nation with monotheism but the nation started as a polytheistic one with one cult gaining upperhand later. Jesus is another mythological figure.
What do you mean by freedom? Where is the "freedom" in most islamic nations? Or by freedom you mean humans submitting to priests without questioning and women staying indoors, without any education, all clad in burqua?
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.
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!
But, you are indeed lying, hence it is acknowledged as such.
You are doing no such thing, everything you say is based on your religion, not facts. If that were the case, you would have acknowledged that the nations corrupted by Islam do not agree with human rights.
That is what we hope you will do.
More lies. It is sad when Muslims are compelled to lie when their faith is acknowledged for what it is. Taqiyya.A Troubled Man , indeed, you are a ''trouble giving man'', I have no argument to change a biased mind. Every thing ,I am stating, is in accordance with history and Islamic laws and wisdom ,I am not compelling you I am just offering you to review your studies and presumptions . A true Muslim and even a true human being will always speak truth and will not be biased in any manner what so ever .
You are indeed a dishonest Muslim.
You have no argument. Period.
No, your claims are only based on dishonesty, not history.
Truth, according to Islam, perhaps, but Islam is false and is teaching you to be dishonest.A Troubled Man , now, you are shouting and abusing like a extremist religious person, therefore, my view is that we will have to compete with reason with religious extremism and anti religion extremism [liberal extremism] whom you are representing , Religious extremists declare opponents as infidel and anti religion extremists declare all opponents as false and liar , what is difference between the mental status of two? .
You are actually being dishonest and not telling the truth. Pointing out this fact can hardly be considered the same thing as religious extremism. Be honest - you are simply lying to defend your irrational beliefs.
You have offered nothing but falsehoods and lies. The only "reasonable" thing to do in this case is to point that out. You are here to lie about Islam in order to try and make converts. All you have actually done is proven that Islam is to be rejected by any reasonable, rational person.
There is no reasoning with you. Even now you are copying the Christians and crying "persecution!", when in fact, all that has happened is your lies have been exposed for what they are. This is why your religion causes so much conflict. Just like the religion Islam copied.No, I am not behaving like you.
This is not so much a matter of religious extremists, it is a simple matter of honesty, which you're not demonstrating.
A Troubled Man , I do not want from you the certificate of honesty , I just demand for being academic in the course of an academic discussion . Thanks
You are not offering anything honest or academic.
Mark knowles , you must first learn the manners of academic discussion as you have many time declared me as liar and dishonest , you must be more civilized than me being European, you must attack my argument you must not attack my intentions , this is the first principle of academic discussion , therefore, recall it and try to maintain, your argument will not become strong by repeating the allegation of speaking lie and dishonesty ..
Your argument is all lies. Please tell the truth and I will stop pointing out that your statements are false. I have never claimed to be more civilized than you. Your intentions are what defines you. This is not an academic discussion. This is an attempt by you to preach your irrational beliefs. If you would make any sort of reasonable argument, I would address it in an academic fashion. Instead you have offered false opinions only.
But - if you wish to have a reasonable discussion - first you must logically prove there is such a thing as "Allah," because every single thing you have said seems to be defending this position - albeit it dishonestly.
Let us begin with that shall we? Perhaps you could start by unambiguously defining this thing, and then go on to make an argument - using logic and reason - that it is not simply a figment of your imagination.That is exactly what we are doing, but you dishonestly keep ignoring facts.
Mark Knowles, I do not know truth, I have an opinion about truth , same is with you but problem is that you are so rigid in your anti religion and anti God belief that have developed a hatred against that and now like religious extremest ,you are not capable to tolerate with some one who have ideas in favour of religion , therefore, when you listen any opinion in favour of religion you become emotional and your hatred never allow you to consider any argument in favour of religion and you presuppose one is telling lie .Come out of this biased psychological condition ,you will not be harmed and it will become easy for you to understand that this is an academic discussion.between two reasonable persons of conflicting views .
He is not tolerating one who obviously lie in favour of his religion.
Academic discussions are not done by taking lies as premises.If you ever start being reasonable I will happily consider it. Sadly you are not being reasonable at all.
Mark Knowles, God is not a ''thing'' to be proved , you can not make this demand because your reason is confined and has certain limitations ,therefore, it may prove a'' thing '' but not God who can never be confined, what ever is proved in laboratory under experiment , may be a thing but not God ,your argument is self conflicting, first create an unconfined reason, then demand to prove God like an experiment or theory , this demand is like a demand of a child who is demanding to prove existence of his father .
From your own post:
"Mr.wilderness, deductive and inductive reasoning can only produce result that no god but GOD [ Allah] and this is Islam"
This would indicate that Allah can be proven. Now you say it can't. Which statement is true and which is a lie?I didn't ask you to prove anything other than through logic. I asked you to define "Allah," and make a reasonable and logical argument for it's existence. Care to try? Or will you continue to spout nonsense and meaningless opinions? Odd you then attack me for not offering reasonable "academic" arguments against such drivel. How so?
Until you make a reasoned argument, which this was not, I cannot reply "academically." Can I?If god is not a "thing", then he is "nothing", Simple.
Simply making unfounded claims won't support your cause.
riddle 666, Obviously, God is not a thing but he is a creator of all things including you and me, do you think ''thing '' is God or creator, therefore, you have not found God, you have found things .Find limitations of your reason before finding out limitations of God , Actually, it is same argument of atheists as child demands that his father must prove His existence as he does not know his father .
Sorry, but science does not agree with your beliefs. Evolution created you and me.
So, you've never heard of DNA testing?OK, god is not a thing, so is he nothing?
So how does 'nothing' create?
I didn't understand much but I think as god is not a thing and as I have looked for a 'thing' I didn't find god, is that what you say. So I am asking again, is your god 'nothing'?
A little while ago you were saying that ration and logic can 'prove' god, now when you are asked to show the reason you say reason has limitations, so what is it? Is there a god that can be 'proved' by logic or is their a god that can be proved by evidence or is their a god with no evidence and is illogical?
Do you know what "exist" is?
wilderness, to prove God like a thing is different from recognition of Him as creator, our reason can never prove God as an experiment or as a theory but our reason recognizes God as we are a creation and we have a conscious of Him but when we want to bring Him in the limits of deductive and inductive reason we fail to prove him because He is not a thing , this demand of Atheists is not logical but ridicule .
And yet it was a believer that clearly stated that "Mr.wilderness, deductive and inductive reasoning can only produce result that no god but GOD [ Allah] and this is Islam"
The result of correct logical reasoning, beginning with a true premiss(s), is truth. But God cannot be proven ("but when we want to bring Him in the limits of deductive and inductive reason we fail to prove him because He is not a thing"), so what was the purpose of the first, totally false, assertion? Simply to convince a reader that you can do something you can't, and thus should be believed? That doesn't sound very honest...
And logical reasoning can apply as much to "non-things" (emotions, for instance, or probabilities) as it can to "things" (matter or energies).
- riddle666posted 11 years ago
0Mr. 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.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. "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.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?"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.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?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.)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.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?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.riddle 666 and wilderness, Interesting, I am taking note that how confusing arguments you people are giving in reply of my logical proof of existence of a creator , how you admitted the No2. and No. 5 of my propositions and how you denied confusingly that absence of evidence about self creation never proves the existence of a creator and He is further required to be proved , how you are trying to link Quantum Mechanics with this without understanding photon theory and the present proposition, further, how are you trying to play poetry with the worde ''creation'' to apply your ''scientific logic'', all these arguments or confusions are interesting , but it is now clear beyond any doubt that I have logically proved the existence of creator and you have no logical or reasonable reply of the same, therefore,now go pl. and scientifically and logically prove the self creation of universe and then reject the theory of creator of universe and if you can not do it , then wait ,I'm waiting with you , universe is self created or created by creator if you have no proof of self creation then only logical conclusion is created by creator and there is no other logical conclusion ,then ,after admitting the universe as creation under what logic you can conclude that it is neither self created nor created by creator? , who is creator? this is logically second question but my proposition has established that this non-self created universe is created by creator and no othe logical conclusion we have for the time being .
Since you are unable to understand, I'll state your "logic" in the proper format,
Premise 1: Everything is creation
Premise 2: Universe is a thing(collection of).
Conclusion: Therefore, Universe is a creation.
If everything is a creation, the creator being a thing has to be a creation, which again has to be created ad infinitum, that means Premise 1 is false, that means your logic is unsound or in common parlance, illogical.
And you have to tell on what basis you assumed that premise 1 is true? Premise 1, even without the illogicality it introduces, is patently false.
The second part of your logic is by taking the faulty conclusion as premise 4, so no need to consider.
So please come up with a valid, sound logic [I hope you know what validity and soundness means - simply accepting one or more premises as true will not make it a sound logic for that all premises should be true and the conclusion should follow the premises. Your two premises are false, though valid(follows premises) is not sound(illogical)]. Also please try to be more legible, I find it very difficult to understand you and didn't understand the later part of your comment.
PS: The photon theory is another nonsense put forward by a fool who do not understand what he is talking about (though I admit, if he had understood what he said, he could have made a good theory, albeit not original), Or did you mean quantum theory of light?No, you didn't prove anything. Numbers 1,4 and 5 are still unproven statements, making the conclusions unproven as well.
If you followed the comments from riddle and myself, a part of the problem I had with your statements is the ambiguity of the English language. Is "creation" being used as a noun or verb, and is the use consistent?
- riddle666posted 11 years ago0
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?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 .
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.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 .
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.
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.Allow me to sum his argument up in a more simple fashion.
"There is definitely a god. Please prove there is not."Mark knowles,riddle 666, wilder, you all are arguing '' we presuppose a self created and self existent universe, prove your God .''
And this would be why religion always causes conflict.
What is this "self created" or "self existent'"? Existence do not need any help, neither self nor from others. Existence is existence, by definition.
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 .
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 ''
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.
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 .
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.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 .?
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.
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 .
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.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?
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 .
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?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."
ThanksIf 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?
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 .
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.Wow! I still can't understand most of his arguments.
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.Your confusion arises from the ambiguity in English words. If we define the words properly then this confusion will not arise and we will be able to discuss by understanding each other instead of guessing what the other person means.
Say, what is time? Time is a concept. So if time is a concept then universe is timeless- no thing called time in the universe - eternal.
Infinitely old is also not a proper term either, finite is regarding an object its limits. No object can be infinite. You are using infinite in place of incessant counting.Negative. Time is not a mere concept dreamed up by man. Mathematically, it is often treated very much the same as any of the three dimensions we commonly perceive. It is subject to planck limits in that there is a minimum length of time possible. It is only a concept, the speed of light (depending on time) is also just a concept.
Infinitely old is indeed a proper concept; the claim was there was no beginning, that the universe has existed "forever". "Forever" does not mean a large number, it means infinite.
Of course, "always existed" is confusing as time was created in the big bang. This, however, negates the idea that the universe was created as well, and brings out the conundrum of a universe without time. Paradox.This confusion arise because of the ambiguity in the word "dimension". Time denotes not dimension but 'change of location' and our standard is the change of location of earth in relation to the sun. There are only three dimensions length, width and height. Mathematics do not tell what time is, it just says time=t, that is here after we put 't' wherever we want to use time. Just because we can assign a number doesn't mean we can interchange seconds with meter(if you note, all dimensions are in meter).
Yes speed is also a concept-m/s. That is meters traversed (change of location by a meter-meter is also defined) by an object in 1/86400th of a day(a single rotation of earth).
it means eternal not infinite. An object is finite (having limits in size). You are counting time and never reach to a stop - incessant counting.
A concept cannot be created but only conceived. It s not a paradox but difficult to grasp because of prejudice (of being a human). Time need not only a change in location but also memory to remember the previous location. In consequence we remember it as a continuum - a continuous progression of events. So we assume a beginning as we see change, never thinking that the actors of the events do not change. It is like a drama troop, each drama has a beginning and end but the artists(atoms) continue but as we see the events as a continuum we imagine, just like any particular event, the continuum also has a beginning and end and the assumed beginning some call big bang. According to Hawkins, your scientist, it doesn't mean time [I got these from an atheist site so do not know whether he said it but only because you said you will believe those of whom who have dedicated their life] started then, it only mean we started to count time from then. It is just like christians counting from birth of jesus, doesn't mean time started then but the era they count started only from then.If time is only a concept, then movement (change of location) is as well. There would be no limits on the rate movement, as time is only a concept and not reality. The speed of light would be variable everywhere, not just according to location, and there would be no limits on velocity.
Yet all those are false; the speed of light is invariant and the rate of change of location is limited. There must be something more than concept for time to play such an important role in our universe. Please, do not mistake units of measurement (seconds, years) for time; artificially designated units of measure do not make time any more than meters make distance.Speed is a concept as speed is only the rate of change of location. It is speed of light in vacuum that is constant.
Suppose an asteroid is moving without any external force do you think the speed will change because we are measuring it? And for relativity it not simply speed of light but the "observer observed" speed of light that is constant which is false. Speed is dependent of the force of propulsion( in vacuum). Each asteroid is different while all lights are same(based on the force applied by the source) though differ in frequency, that is why light has same speed while asteroids different.
Time do not play any role in the universe only matter does. It is because the matter moves that we can calculate time and evolution happens. If everything remained in the same place there is no time or human.
You said time is a dimension, I was saying why it is not. Imagine a rectangular box and imagine its length, width and height. Now turn the box you will find that what was previously length becomes height and height becomes length, that is, the dimensions are all interchangeable, depends only on the position. So if time was a dimension you could have easily interchanged time with any of the other dimensions. Also take three similar pencils, keep it in mutually perpendicular directions all connected at the middle. Now if can you get another mutually perpendicular direction? You will find that it is impossible and if you join all the ends with circular lines you will create a sphere. (The pencil represent dimension). Now imagine that the sphere is earth and imagine another sphere and move the first one around the second in a circle with the latter as centre, that is time. That is dimensions are intrinsic while time is extrinsic, location not dimension.
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"?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 ?
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.Deleted
''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.wilder, I have not finalized my new proposition but how your'' knowledge'' has proved that universe is existing by self ?
Whatever makes you think it has? I merely stated that we have no knowledge of anything outside our universe; a true statement, but not one that claims there IS nothing else.
In making your proposition, do be sure that any premiss is well proven using guidelines science uses for proof. Statements of opinion, belief or other unproven "facts" do not lead to a logically proven conclusion.wilder, you mean that my first premises is not a proved fact and existence may exist by self ? if so , then, there is only one example and evidence for the self existence in this universe?
The Universe itself is the example. We agree it exists, and as far as I understand the physics, the Universe has existed for all time. You are the one making a claim that there was a time that the Universe did not exist and there exists a non-thing that does not exist inside existence, yet created the Universe, because everything needs a creator.
Except one thing does not need a creator, because it has always existed. And it is not the Universe, because we know everything needs a creator, except for one thing, but you don't need tp prove that everything needs a creator except one thing because you don't need to prove anything when making claims, is it everyone else needs to disprove the existence of this non-thing that exists outside existence and is completely undetectable.
But it must be there, otherwise the Universe could not exist, because everything needs a creator. Except this one thing that doesn't.Mark Knowles, very good argument my dear, but what is your fallacy ? the presumption that universe always exists , you have no scientific evidence for the same, you observe a universe existing not a universe for ever existing ,therefore your presumption of universe having no beginning is against your observation and scientific evidence, consequently, your argument is based over a false premises .First prove a universe existing by self or forever then deny the logical conclusion of creator out of universe not proving its self existence for ever . We not need to prove creator as non self existing universe is proving Him.It is your claim that universe is self existing and upon the basis of the same you deny the creator , therefore, prove your claim ?
Yes we do have scientific evidence and theories. Sorry. Please do some research before repeating your irrational belief.
Honestly - it does you no good to demonstrate your total ignorance of current scientific thinking. I suggest reading Stephen Hawking as a first step, then - if you have some logical proof that he is wrong - you will be the most famous, well respected physicist in the world. Not to mention rich.
You could start by proving there was a time when the matter/energy that makes up the Universe did not exist.
I would also appreciate it if you addressed the points I made instead of repeating your claims. I can also help you with your English to summarize your claim:
"Everything MUST be created (except Allah). You cannot prove that the Universe was not created by Allah, therefore Allah."
Mark Knowles, I know, law of conservation of mass , law of conservation of energy, theory of evolution, quantum theory of mechanics, photon theory, theory of relativity,theory of every thing, theory of four forces, theory of big bang , but what theory proves the self existence of universe?
I don't believe you know these theories. You may have copied and pasted their names, and know of them, but I doubt you know them. If you did - you would understand that the Universe has always existed. Try reading the physicist I suggested. Once you have read and can disproved his theories, you will be a wealthy and famous man.
Since you know of all of these things, I hope all your knowledge also includes the knowledge of the difference between a claim of belief and a claim of knowledge. In case you don't, I will help you.
To express a claim of knowledge, you are stating that something is true and as such you have evidence that will prove your claim of knowledge. All claims of knowledge require evidence to support the claim. Failure to provide that evidence leads one to believe that either you do not have truly have that evidence or that you simply choose to withhold that evidence for yourself. The former is dishonest because you are making a claim of knowledge without having evidence to back it up. The latter is dishonest AND selfish because you are choosing to keep information that is needed to yourself (and given that this is evidence of Allah actually goes against the Islamic principle of reaching to others and teaching the way)...
To express a claim of belief, you are stating (and accepting) that you may not have sufficient evidence that would be universally acceptable to anyone else and as such said belief is only applicable to yourself.
If you are claiming knowledge that you do not have or refuse to provide, then your credibility is lowered because of dishonesty. If claiming belief, you were semi respected for your honestly, but others will still disagree with your belief because they believe (or lack belief) differently than you
Mark Knowles, I will never like to make any claim about my knowledge , you are referring the opinion of a scientist but not explaining the law of science establishing the self existence of universe ?
Quantum physics is probably the most complex idea known to man. You expect me to explain it in a forum thread? Stop being lazy and go do the research. Then you will disprove everything and be rich.
You have made many claims about your knowledge:
You have claimed to know that nothing can come into existence without a creator (except one thing lol)
You have claimed to know that there was a point in time where the Universe did not exist
You have claimed to know that a creator exists outside of existence
You have claimed to know the name of this creatorNow you've done it!
With your total failure to prove the precepts of quantum mechanics the only possible conclusion is that therefore god created the universe. Next thing you know you'll be buying a prayer rug or dropping coins in the collection plate!True enough. If I was going to jump on an irrational belief bandwagon, it is highly unlikely to be Islam.
Irrational. If you are to use a belief system outside of reality you might as well enchant that prayer rug. Save gas and rail tokens both, plus I hear that a nice, well woven and colorful flying carpet is quite a chick magnet! Surely Allah will protect you from getting caught by your wife?
But aren't Jedis supposed to be celibate? I don't see that working for you!
No - Luke has a father, after all, and fatherhood and celibacy don't work well together.
In any case, a Jedi can also go to the dark side, where anything goes!
Yes, there is one example of something that MAY have created itself. (Not, mind you, DID create itself, but MAY have done so). The universe.
As it MAY have done so, it negates your claim that NOTHING created itself because everything requires a creator. Unless you can provide proof beyond saying that because there is no proof to the contrary then self creation is impossible?
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.
, it appears so.
Related Discussions
- 559
Islam, is it a violent religion?
by thirdmillenium 7 years ago
Does Islam contain some doctrines that make it mandatory for all Muslims to kill/destroy/annihilate followers of other religions/atheists/agnostics? Some say it does. Some others say it was not originally in the text but had been stealthily inserted later by religious fanatics.
- 42
What comes in your mind when you hear the word Islam or Muslim?
by Wissam Qawasmeh 6 years ago
What comes in your mind when you hear the word Islam or Muslim?And Why?
- 222
Are you an Islamic Extremist?
by marinealways24 11 months ago
If you are a Islamic and you hate Americans, I think you should have the courage to state why you hate Americans. Are you Islamic Extremist that hates Americans? If so, why?
- 21
There is only one religion for this world from God.
by rsrcabdi 13 years ago
Thanks for sharing Islamic propaganda and the intolerance it promotes.
- 15
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam
by skyfire 14 years ago
You really needs to see this if you think Islam is tolerant or gives any freedom.http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cairo_Dec … s_in_IslamNow if anyone wants to say that out of X population count there can't be large number of non-peaceful and less-tolerant crowd then this declaration can open...
- 114
Humanity’s future lays with Ahmadiyya
by paarsurrey 13 years ago
I want to dispel the notion that Agnosticism is the future of humanity.There is no future for the Agnosticism; it is a state of doubt which will be short lived only; it is a transient stage. Its only usefulness is that it will swallow up the myth of some religions like Trinity of Christianity and...