Does God exist? (5 Viewers)

[Drsoccerball]

[1] Concerning people suffering unnecessarily.

For Islam, suffering is the will of Allah, and one just needs to submit (DrSoccerball, please correct if wrong).

Suffering in Islam is caused by breaking the rules of the Universe like I've said somewhere in a previous post. (If one drinks poison they make themselves suffer.) If one inevitably gets sick they have to look for an antidote of some sort, making supplication isn't enough as you know. Also if you are patient in sickness or any other physical barrier and you don't complain then the reward you will receive is beyond imagination.

 

[dan964]

You know. You do not understand, empathise, or even relate.

I do, maybe not to same degree. Please don't assume my circumstances.

If you require the existence of a higher being in order for your life to have meaning, that says all I need to know about you.

Well another starking assumption again, I don't require it nor demand it, but don't rule it either.
But as I am convinced of the evidence for the resurrection and all that, I have come to a different conclusion. Otherwise if I wasn't, I probably wouldn't be a person of faith.

I am well that the evidence is not enough for you or convincing.

Two random semi-related things:
When the people who discovered the black swan, no-one believed them when they returned, because there was only white swans. I mentioned this one earlier. If you have to systematic ignore all evidence to the contrary, to naturalism such as miracles for instance (and yes people of faith do this also it goes both ways equally), then it is a very rational way of learning really.

Since when can relativists make such absolute judgements. And if meaning is relative, why would you care about where I find meaning?

 

[dan964]

Suffering in Islam is caused by breaking the rules of the Universe like I've said somewhere in a previous post. (If one drinks poison they make themselves suffer.) If one inevitably gets sick they have to look for an antidote of some sort, making supplication isn't enough as you know. Also if you are patient in sickness or any other physical barrier and you don't complain then the reward you will receive is beyond imagination.

I see

 

[Paradoxica]

Suffering in Islam is caused by breaking the rules of the Universe like I've said somewhere in a previous post. (If one drinks poison they make themselves suffer.) If one inevitably gets sick they have to look for an antidote of some sort, making supplication isn't enough as you know. Also if you are patient in sickness or any other physical barrier and you don't complain then the reward you will receive is beyond imagination.

That's circular, since one must first believe in the rules in order to affirm that is the reason they are suffering.

My suffering, however, is a genetically induced neurological condition.

Explain this using your religious logic.

 

[Drsoccerball]

That's circular, since one must first believe in the rules in order to affirm that is the reason they are suffering.

My suffering, however, is a genetically induced neurological condition.

Explain this using your religious logic.

The rules I am talking about is what scientists dub as "The Laws of Nature." Which applies for all diseases. Why do I get sick It's because there's a virus in me. Following the Laws of the Universe I mean is like preventing the virus by using vaccines and medicine... That is something we both believe it's not circular? As you said it's a genetically induced condition. This can either be prevented by the parents first determining whether or not they have compatible genes or later in the future when we're able to cure such conditions.

 

[Drsoccerball]

I see

First time you didn't roast me for saying something

 

[Paradoxica]

The rules I am talking about is what scientists dub as "The Laws of Nature." Which applies for all diseases. Why do I get sick It's because there's a virus in me. Following the Laws of the Universe I mean is like preventing the virus by using vaccines and medicine... That is something we both believe it's not circular? As you said it's a genetically induced condition. This can either be prevented by the parents first determining whether or not they have compatible genes or later in the future when we're able to cure such conditions.

So basically, if they are ignorant of the existence of such things, then they and their children deserve it?

That's horrible.

Also, there is no compatibility issues, only genetic carrier issues.

Biology is complicated.

 

[dan964]

First time you didn't roast me for saying something

i usually don't actually comment in that way on this thread, because I usually don't need to comment on something that
- I agree with
or
- I have no knowledge about/irrelevant to me

 

[Drsoccerball]

So basically, if they are ignorant of the existence of such things, then they and their children deserve it?

That's horrible.

Also, there is no compatibility issues, only genetic carrier issues.

Biology is complicated.

Yeah that's what I was trying to say .It's not about deserving something. It's just the laws that have been put in place and if you follow them a better result comes out if you follow than if you don't follow. But as we know good things also come out such as you being a genius

 

[Paradoxica]

Yeah that's what I was trying to say .It's not about deserving something. It's just the laws that have been put in place and if you follow them a better result comes out if you follow than if you don't follow. But as we know good things also come out such as you being a genius

Unfortunately I don't believe in your extension of the physical laws. Also, this "genius" costed me a lot, for example, the ability to ever truly be happy again. Having only the mental resources of the average human, compromises were made.

 

[dan964]

This is not even remotely close to what is historically true. You are extremely naive if you think that the sciences and the arts are mutually incompatible.

And your point on language isn't even a valid one. Communication must occur before naturalism can, otherwise, how else would we share our observations, thoughts, ideas and hypotheses?

No I am not extremely naive. They aren't mutually exclusive or incompatible but they are not the same field within reality, which is what naturalism implies. Science gives one degree of explanation of reality, the arts are another, and yes language comes under that. So my point still stands. If the point of communication is just to share observations, thoughts and ideas and hypothesis.
Thoughts, ideas, observations and maybe hypotheses aren't limited to a purely naturalistic framework, so my point still stands although probably not entirely: which that there are multiple lenses in which you can look at the world. Obviously for you, science would be the primary lens or the "standard" by which you judge the rest of the lens.

There are many metaphysical things, or abstract concepts:
"existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence." Of which some are obviously very practical in science and technology. (Particularly some of the concepts of mathematics)

What do you mean about remotely "historically true"? So all the scientists who took & take science seriously are naturalists? I don't think so.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Unfortunately I don't believe in your extension of the physical laws. Also, this "genius" costed me a lot, for example, the ability to ever truly be happy again. Having only the mental resources of the average human, compromises were made.

That's me observing everything in a positive way What do you mean you don't agree ?... You don't agree that drinking poison is harmful ?

 

[Paradoxica]

That's me observing everything in a positive way What do you mean you don't agree ?... You don't agree that drinking poison is harmful ?

It's called an antidote.

Unless we're talking about Di-methyl Cadmium, that shit has no cure.

 

[Drsoccerball]

It's called an antidote.

Unless we're talking about Di-methyl Cadmium, that shit has no cure.

Exactly the reward for an antidote is good health I don't know how the laws of the Universe is that hard to understand ...
The cure would be prevention of contact as in not getting close to it in the first place.

 

[Paradoxica]

Exactly the reward for an antidote is good health I don't know how the laws of the Universe is that hard to understand ...
The cure would be prevention of contact as in not getting close to it in the first place.

Why is everything for you a reward or punishment?

There are only actions, reactions, and their consequences. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Why is everything for you a reward or punishment?

There are only actions, reactions, and their consequences. Nothing more, nothing less.

What's wrong with calling bad reactions and consequences punishments and good reactions and consequences rewards? It's just the way Ustadh Said Nursi says it so I say it that way too

 

[Paradoxica]

What's wrong with calling bad reactions and consequences punishments and good reactions and consequences rewards? It's just the way Ustadh Said Nursi says it so I say it that way too

Because it implies some higher power is governing the consequences.

There is no such thing.

 

[dan964]

Because it implies some higher power is governing the consequences.

There is no such thing.

Yes it does imply moral accountability, whether that be to some higher power, or some absolute standard, neither of which you would (I presume) believe exist.

Well there is an absolute, it just depends on whether it is God, or the pastafarian noodle thing that you claimed to believe in. If it implies such, and then you say no such thing, the question is why?

 

[dan964]

To get this thread a bit closer to the topic, here is a video, explaining one of the other (which I haven't really use mind you) arguments for the existence of God, helpfully someone Pm'ed me this:

Follow up video:
https://youtu.be/s2ULF5WixMM

 

[Paradoxica]

Well there is, it just depends on whether it is God, or the pastafarian noodle thing that you claimed to believe in.
If it implies such, and then you say no such thing, the question is why?

Because trying to make such an entity fit in the framework of logic results in arbitrary and off the bat conclusions.

The most consistent framework of logic is to assume that the lack of evidence means that questioning the existence of such an entity is a meaningless question, at least until evidence can be verified. Though this does raise some philosophical questions on the problem of induction.

Example: What is the probability the sun will rise tomorrow?

This has been explored along many avenues, and to no avail.