Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[Drsoccerball]

Let this be the last time we stray of topic.

 

[dan964]

I didn't reply to these messages because I clearly in previous posts said that if the "Islamic" countries aren't following what Islam teaches they can't be called Islamic and they're actions don't show what Islam teaches.

What gives you the ground to say that they aren't teaching Islam? (There is a very simple answer that I could think of that you should say).
I am talking about countries like Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Maldives, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Qatar, Egypt, Malaysia, Tajikistan etc. Even countries like UAE, Turkey, Mali and the list goes on.

These are countries where there is severe persecution of non-Islamic groups; especially of those who were formally Muslim. Now I understand that you have an explanation; but I don't see why it is justified.

 

[dan964]

You got to understand at that time even if a woman/man was suspected of adultery the husband/wife would kill them without evidence as it would be the more "honourable" thing to do. So if they just lifted that all together the fornication in society would just exponentially increase. So they gave a nearly impossible way to get caught and that is to have 4 witnesses. Also the Jews were allowed to practice they're own law so...


Are you going to quote what was happening at that time?

"Abdullah Ibn Khatal was a companion of Prophet Muhammad (p), sent out for a mission to collect alms (tax). A slave accompanied him. When they came to a place to rest, Abdullah told the slave to cook some food. Instead of the slave following orders, he was exhausted and ended up sleeping. When Abdullah woke up to see no food was prepared, he became vexed and attacked the slave and ended up killing him.

Abdullah was scared to go back to the Prophet (p) on what he had done because if he did so, he would have been killed for unlawfully taking a life. Hence, Ibn Khatal became a disbeliever and joined the enemies of the Prophet, the Quraish. So, when Prophet Muhammad (p) conquered Makkah, he was one of those whom the Prophet (p) had ordered be killed."
... You can literally find these yourself.


Straight off wiki : Abu 'Afak (Arabic: أبو عفك‎, died c. 624) was a Jewish poet who lived in the Hijaz region (today Saudi Arabia). Abu 'Afak did not convert to Islam and was vocal about his opposition to Muhammad. He became a significant political enemy of Muhammad.



Context. It's like someone spreading negative propaganda in a war. Same with above


No it's alright I don't want to waste your time.

Even more so with the context, but it still does not convince me that Mohammed was a peaceful man; or that his actions were justified. All it shows it he is a political leader also who "eliminates" those who disagree with him, which was my original point. I was flowing actually on from what braintic claimed.

I think you find in the west, that "honour" killings and even corporal punishment are not really justified.

 

[Drsoccerball]

What gives you the ground to say that they aren't teaching Islam? (There is a very simple answer that I could think of that you should say).
I am talking about countries like Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Maldives, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Qatar, Egypt, Malaysia, Tajikistan etc. Even countries like UAE, Turkey, Mali and the list goes on.

Because they're going against the essence of the very law.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Even more so with the context, but it still does not convince me that Mohammed was a peaceful man; or that his actions were justified. All it shows it he is a political leader also who "eliminates" those who disagree with him, which was my original point. I was flowing actually on from what braintic claimed.

I think you find in the west, that "honour" killings and even corporal punishment are not really justified.

Think what you want If it were all one nation and he was ordering the killing of anyone that disagreed with him that would be a dictatorship. Many times the companions would suggest something crazy like pulling out someone's teeth so they don't talk bad about the prophet but the prophet didn't even harm this person in any way(He was one of the leaders of the people who were trying to kill all the muslims).

But again you'll probably dispute this I suggest we stop here.

 

[dan964]

Think what you want If it were all one nation and he was ordering the killing of anyone that disagreed with him that would be a dictatorship. Many times the companions would suggest something crazy like pulling out someone's teeth so they don't talk bad about the prophet but the prophet didn't even harm this person in any way(He was one of the leaders of the people who were trying to kill all the muslims).

But again you'll probably dispute this I suggest we stop here.

I don't need to comment. I have already stated my case, I don't need to restate it. We will just disagree then.

 

[dan964]

Just wanted to quote this because I don't think anyone read this.

I don't think whether people can actually decipher what it is actually saying.

 

[dan964]

Keep leaving in your imaginary world buddy...

*living

Now that is a childish response, not exactly. But we are clearly not on the same page. See my longer response on page 714 for my explanation.

What you find, is that many groups were persecuted in Arabia at that time, including the Jews. Basically it is kind of a civil war that happened in that region and unfortunately religion was very much interlinked.

My reply was initially focused on Islamic practice today, although I have used some examples from LOM. Research shows there is varying approval rate of things such as honour killings, death for apostasy, views of what jihad is etc varies from country to country; and within the Islamic faith itself, some of which do raise a legitimate concern in our modern day context.

Retaliation certainly does not justify anything, certainly not anything moral. Do you honestly think that war is justified if it is self-defense? (you don't need to answer that).

 

[dan964]

Because they're going against the essence of the very law.

Which is? I already commented on Surah 2:256, and how verses in the Quran are abrogated.
There are many verses in the Quran, that require people of the Book & other non-Muslims to pay the gizyat (I cannot spell it sorry) tax specifically for them and very similar practices that act as a more subtle form of "compulsion"

 

[braintic]

Still waiting for people to explain why the "evidence" they claim to see for a god when observing nature specifically points to their version of god and not a different one (including the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

 

[Paradoxica]

Still waiting for people to explain why the "evidence" they claim to see for a god when observing nature specifically points to their version of god and not a different one (including the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

Oh come on. You already know that's to satirise the people who say that.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Still waiting for people to explain why the "evidence" they claim to see for a god when observing nature specifically points to their version of god and not a different one (including the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

Arguments for Divine Existence and Unity and how to acquire a firm conviction of Divine Unity

This literally talks about signs in nature give it a read. Press the button that takes you to the post.

It may be hard to understand so read it slowly. It was translated but it does make sense! So if you don't understand a sentence in it read it a few times.

 

[Paradoxica]

This literally talks about signs in nature give it a read. Press the button that takes you to the post.

It may be hard to understand so read it slowly. It was translated but it does make sense! So if you don't understand a sentence in it read it a few times.

Claiming a coincidence is support for the existence of a god is poor form, both philosophically and empirically.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Claiming a coincidence is support for the existence of a god is poor form, both philosophically and empirically.

Did you read the whole thing? What he's trying to point out is it isn't a coincidence...

 

[Paradoxica]

Did you read the whole thing? What he's trying to point out is it isn't a coincidence...

Yes, and I could make the same claims for essentially anything else, what's your point?
The argument is sound, but it is not valid.

 

[dan964]

Still waiting for people to explain why the "evidence" they claim to see for a god when observing nature specifically points to their version of god and not a different one (including the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

I don't think it does by necessity point to a specific version per-say. Even Paul agrees with that one to some degree...
"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." (letter to the Romans)

It points to certain things about God, certain characteristics.
Somewhat we can eliminate some ideas though, such as Russell's teapot as it is a contingent thing, as is any pantheistic religion (which a lot of the ancient and pagan religions for instance are).

Although I will say if God is a deist, the whole discussion becomes irrelevant. We can also infer that God must indeed be high-ordered than us (you can gradually extend that argument against Arianism for instance), in the sense that there is always some part to God that can only be understood and accepted by faith.

The second thing, is our very own lives indicate somewhat the complexity within God. But as a starting point, the power and "exceedingness" i.e. the divine nature of God, is what can be directly inferred from nature. That is enough to rule out certain viewpoints but not all.

Specific and more comprehensive understanding of God, in the different religion; depend on different "prophets" (using the term loosely), of which some claim (differs from religion) are a mouthpiece of God; or a mirror to what God is like; or in the case of Christianity; is actually God in the flesh (Jesus) (which for many other faiths sounds insane/incomprehensible).

Nature gives us a heads up with God's existence and his attributes; but certainly does not conclude enough with sufficient evidence to compel for faith; hence when nature is all that is taken into account (such as in naturalism or even scientism), you don't have theists; only theistic agnostics or deists at best.

 

[Drsoccerball]

What things about / in nature give us a heads up of the existence / attributes of a deity?

note: question open to all

read the essay ^

 

[Drsoccerball]

Yes, and I could make the same claims for essentially anything else, what's your point?
The argument is sound, but it is not valid.

No you can't :L you're basing everything off chance...

 

[Paradoxica]

No you can't :L you're basing everything off chance...

I do not accept philosophical certainty. I do not even accept that this reality I percieve is a real thing. But at least I don't let that belief interfere with my ability to function in society. You, on the other hand.

 

[Paradoxica]

No you can't :L you're basing everything off chance...

And furthermore, the only absolute, is that there are no absolutes.