0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:Originally posted by hddd12345678910I am a Muslim, for a change
quote:I haven't read all the posts, but as a general response, the problem I seem to see with most of the arguments here is that everyone tries to 'fit' God into science, even though God is the one who initiated matter from nothing and began time when it didn't exist and created the very fabric of the universe from nothing. So, does it really make sense for us to try to frame the One with the capacity to create the quarks and the electrons and protons and so on from nothing into a system (science) which is directly derived from His creations?
quote: What you forget is that science in all its glory only creates a representation/instance of the world around us and not a copy of it.
quote:This is so since all renderings/simulation of the world around us, no matter how sophisticated, will run on a looping function with a finite delay between frames. Will you find some sort of minimum time interval between universal progressions?
quote:Science can tell us what is, but it canít tell us what ought to be.
quote:If God had willed, he could have created an unstable environment in which the so called ďUniversal ForcesĒ (gravity, weak force, strong force and electromagnetism) kept changing orientation or be completely replaced by some new law. If God can initiate such laws to begin with, then why would He not be able to change them?
quote:However, it says quite a few times in the Quran that God himself promises that his laws will never change, and it is for this very reason that there is even such an occupation such as a scientist.
quote:So, for the person apt in deductive and logical reasoning, you may find that the question to ask is not whether or not God exists. It is whether or not the universe around us exists, and as far as that is concerned; I doubt that it even deserves a passing comment.
quote:Originally posted by another_someoneIt is a fair comment that God need not fit into science, but if God does not 'fit' into science, then He cannot be real when viewed from a scientific perspective. This does not preclude His existence when viewed from other perspectives, but then one has to be careful to define the parameters of the particular perspective in which He does become a reality, and be careful to show that the perspective in which He may exist cannot overlap the scientific perspective.
quote: Now you've lost me. I can understand that one can view the universe as discrete time intervals, it does not follow that this is an inherent property of all possible scientific models.
quote:In this, I would slightly disagree with you. The importance of science is not that it will tell me what is (my own eyes can tell me that), but that it can tell me what will be (i.e. it can extrapolate from the present into the future, and can then demonstrate that that extrapolation correlates with the perceived reality at the time).
quote:This does not follow.Even if one assumed that God created all that is the universe we see, humans are notorious for creating things they are subsequently unable to control, so to assume that because God creates something thus he must be able to manipulate and control it at will is not a logical inevtability.
quote:Aside from whether, that the Quran reports God as saying something, does it actually mean the report is true; but even if it is an accurate report, how can you demonstrate that God himself is telling the truth? Given the enormous power that God supposedly has, how could you possibly hope to be able to catch Him out on a lie? I am not saying that He was lying, I am merely asking whether you have the competence to tell whether He was lying or not.
quote:To ask whether the universe around us exists is a perfectly valid question for a solipsist to ask, it is merely a very difficult question to answer.
quote: I essentially stated that it makes no sense for humans to frame God around our system of understanding of the universe around us (namely science), since it is God who created the system that we analyze with the limited abilities we possess. So if God does not Ďfití into our system of science, then it does not mean that He does not exist, but rather it means that our system is too provincial and limited in capacity to provide for such a possibility.
quote:Originally posted by hddd12345678910Judging from your reply, you did not thoroughly understand my post (or maybe youíre ignoring some aspects of it because of being an atheist). I essentially stated that it makes no sense for humans to frame God around our system of understanding of the universe around us (namely science), since it is God who created the system that we analyze with the limited abilities we possess. So if God does not Ďfití into our system of science, then it does not mean that He does not exist, but rather it means that our system is too provincial and limited in capacity to provide for such a possibility.
quote: I suppose the problem here is that for some wildly strange reason unknown to me, and surely will remain unknown to me, atheists and people in general have no concept of the fact that God CREATED FROM NOTHING EVERYTHING AROUND YOU!
quote: Scientific models are not simulations, they are just, wellÖmodels. I was referring to simulations that actually actively simulate the world around us like the type you may see on a game like Grand Tourismo which if you didnít already know is a racing simulation. Of course you could get a really sophisticated simulation to calculate the events occurring at extremely small time intervals, but ultimately, thatís what you would be doing: calculating. Basically my point was that no matter what, you cannot create a simulation that can replicate the quality of the universe, namely the infinite divisibility of time, or a physically infinite large universe either.
quote:First of all, the only reason that you are able to know what will be is because of the stability of the universal laws. As I previously mentioned, if the universal laws kept changing with Godís will, then you and anyone else would be completely devoid of the possibility of even knowing for sure such a thing as if an apple detaches from a tree it will fall down. And Newton would never have found an apple falling from a tree of any significance since the next day the apple might just stayed there.
quote: Secondly, you never responded to portion that stated ďit cannot tell us what ought to beĒ, so Iím going to have to assume that you agree with that statement.
quote:Besides the, in my opinion, extremely selfish desire to compare the intellect of humans to that of God in his infinite Wisdom and Knowledge (selfish because of the reasons already mentioned), humans donít Create anything! The most they can do as far as creation is concerned is the creation of ideas and concepts, but even those are gifts from God, for if He had willed He could have made us like the rest of the animal kingdom; unaware of their own existence. Everything else we humans do is purely the manipulation of whatever is already created and supplied from God.
quote:And why do you think that humans are notorious for Ďcreatingí things they are subsequently unable to control? It is because humans are not even remotely aware of their Ďcreationsí at a fundamental level (the subatomic or atomic level in this instance). If the chemist was able to consciously know what was occurring at the atomic level when doing his/her experiment, do you think that he/she would ever make a mistake cause some kind of undesired/uncontrollable reaction? God did not make his Creations from a macroscopic context and subsequently leave it up to chance what happens at the subatomic level. How could any living organism possibly survive for a day without constant adjustments taking place at a microscopic or further yet at an atomic level? Indeed God created everything around us from the most fundamental level of organization. And if the chemist was able to know what was occurring at the most fundamental level, would he/she not have absolute control of his experiment? (Not to draw any further comparison between God and a chemist then enough to respond to your statement)
quote:If you read a book in which 100% of the information in it that you can UNDERSTAND is found by yourself to be accurate, then what reason would you have to assume that the things in the this book that you CURRENTLY DONíT UNDERSTAND are incorrect! Such an assumption in this situation can only come from blatant ignorance.
quote:Following this, God promises himself that He does not lie and his laws never change among other things in the Quran.
quote:And by the way, the Quran doesnít Ďreportí anything, the author of the Quran is none other then God.
quote:quote:To ask whether the universe around us exists is a perfectly valid question for a solipsist to ask, it is merely a very difficult question to answer. If after all that some one is to make such an argument as the universe doesnít exist, then donít expect me to waste my time on such futile logic.
quote:Are we not supposed to be created in godís image and therefore wouldn't our limited abilities be his limited ability. How is one supposed to follow and worship if we havenít been given the ability to understand what one is following.
quote:Why would a god who wishes to be obeyed and followed through laws written down in a book of all things,(so simplistic considering the workings of the universe) give his creations the ability to investigate and question his existence through science and then fail to give them whatís required to understand and prove his existence. Wouldnít that be classed as dumb and certainly not what you would expect from someone with the wisdom and ability to create the universe.
quote: The problem I have with God is firstly, that he cannot fit into the scientific model
quote: As such, I was acknowledging that since science was incomplete, it is perfectly legitimate to hypothesise that things, such as God, might exist outside science (i.e. that science was not a complete system of understanding the universe, but was a sufficient system for the purposes required of it).
quote: Nor can the notion of God be proven by any formal logic
quote: And if one did assume God existed, then which model of God, and why would one assume one model of God the right interpretation and another model of God to be the wrong interpretation (and I'm not merely talking about the various 'religions of the book', Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which substantially refer to the same God, but Hinduism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and many others)?
quote: Another reason why a lot of people shy away from the idea of God is that they have seen in history that far too many people have killed each other over disagreements about which God to worship, and how He should be worshipped. I actually think this is an erroneous argument, since atheists have proven themselves just as capable of killing each other as people who believe in one God or another, but it has left religion with a bad reputation in some people's eyes.
quote:I think most of the above is semantics. I accept that to 'create' something, one does so by manipulating what is. If by 'create' you are using the word to merely mean to make something out of nothing, then I agree humans cannot do that - in fact, it is doubtful if in any logical sense it could ever be possible to do that. The act or creation is an act of causality (i.e. one has caused something to be created), and thus one must also have a means of causality, and thus something must be created from something (even if that something is totally from outside of this universe). This is not to say that it is logically impossible for something to appear without cause, but that is not a deliberate act of creation, it is a random act without prior cause.
quote:That humans cannot ever predict to the minutest detail, and with 100% certainty, the consequences of their actions; I would agree with, and in fact follows from what we have agreed about an inability of ever making a complete simulation of the universe.Whether this has anything to do with God is something I suspect we shall have to agree to disagree about.
quote: If I read a book written in Serbo-Croat, I will not understand a single word written in the book, and yet every word that I understand will be true. This will be so, even if every word in the book is untrue, because I do not understand any of the words that are untrue.
quote: I'm sorry, but to quote Mandy Rice-Davies, ďHe would say that, wouldn't heĒ.
quote: I am sorry if I sound ignorant on this, but I thought the Quran was supposedly written by the Prophet, and those who came before him, supposedly at the behest of God, but not by God in person.
quote:Originally posted by hddd12345678910UmmmÖthese posts are getting too long, lolÖ
quote:quote: The problem I have with God is firstly, that he cannot fit into the scientific modelThe core of my argument is, as I have already said, the problem shouldnít be that God doesnít fit into any type of human-made scientific model, itís rather that you are even trying to fit God into a system which is directly founded/based from His creations (namely the Heavens and the Earth and please refer to my previous posts for reference). And as far as your mathematical equation example goes, please refer to your own quote:quote: As such, I was acknowledging that since science was incomplete, it is perfectly legitimate to hypothesise that things, such as God, might exist outside science (i.e. that science was not a complete system of understanding the universe, but was a sufficient system for the purposes required of it).
quote:quote: And if one did assume God existed, then which model of God, and why would one assume one model of God the right interpretation and another model of God to be the wrong interpretation (and I'm not merely talking about the various 'religions of the book', Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which substantially refer to the same God, but Hinduism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and many others)?I guess my most uncontroversial response to that statement is which ever survives the test of time and is the last one standing. God states in the Quran that no matter which way humans try to govern themselves, all man made systems will continue to fail until humans ultimately realize, by way of exclusion, what system is indeed the best for the governance of humans. This is of course the most extreme case, and one undoubtedly containing the ravages of World War III, I personally would hope the humans would find another way to learn about themselves without consistently resorting to mass crises to wake them up.
quote:However, if you want a more concrete understanding of why one is the best over others, I would have to say itís the one that is most logical in nature. What proof do any of these other religions have of any of their claims? The proof to backup the Quran is the Sun, the Moon, the inherent stability of the universe and all the stars dressed up as ornaments in the night sky as well as any and all scientific discoveries humans may ever make. But I wouldnít dream of being able to sum up Ďmain themeí of the Quran even if there was one. I have already directed anyone interested to ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN for further reference if you are in any doubt of anything I say. This is so since the Quran is capable of explaining itself better then I could ever hope to do so myself.
quote:The point that I was trying to make was that if you could Create something from nothing and be cognizant of the creation in a most fundamental level (atomic and subatomic or even strings if we want to go that far) then I donít see how its possible for one to argue against your ability to have full control over your creation for all time.
quote:quote: I'm sorry, but to quote Mandy Rice-Davies, ďHe would say that, wouldn't heĒ.Here Iím assuming that you mean that I said what I said to underhandedly promote the Quran? Correct me if Iím wrong. If not, then if you donít believe what I had stated, then I challenge you to read it and find out for your self whether or not I had made up the statements.
quote:quote: I am sorry if I sound ignorant on this, but I thought the Quran was supposedly written by the Prophet, and those who came before him, supposedly at the behest of God, but not by God in person.Iím not at all surprised, considering that the average muslim has no concept of what the teachings of Quran are, I could hardly expect you, a westerner, to have any better understanding. The Quran is authored by God, but since he promised that he and his angels would not physically interfere with humans outside the laws of the universe, he canít actually send down a pre-written book because that would be breaking his promise. No offense, but this is why the Prophets were called Messengers after all, they delivered the messages of God for humans, and in the case of Mohammad, the last of the Prophets, the message was as deemed by God recorded in the form of a book by honored scribes through the recitations of the Prophet who was just a plain human.
quote: The other consequence of the above statement is that it actually alleviates the responsibility from the individual to decide which religion is right, since your argument seems to say that we should wait and see, and in the end, only one religion will remain (which may or may not be the religion of Islam), and then we shall know by that which is the right religion.
quote:Originally posted by hddd12345678910I knew from the beginning that there was no way of actually convincing anyone of anything (although my hopes were admittedly high during the last few posts).
quote: Before my initial post I had from experience, from this increasingly secular society, begun to realize how essentially we all live in a relativistic society; a society in which a person can call just about anything an argument. A society in which the source of all types of moral restraints are removed from some higher plane and place as a responsibility to the shoulders of individuals; resulting in the frequent removal of moral restraints more or less altogether. A society in which the quick gains of the immediate are taken over the investment in the long term (You have to read the Quran, the version that I have reference a couple of times, to understand some of these statements).
quote:Before I continue, please keep in mind that Iím 19, so that I am mostly in contact with college students; maybe now you can understand where Iím coming from with my argument for relativism if you hadnít already. They might not represent the current society, but since they arenít too far off from becoming the backbone of this society, I think itís fair to consider the society in their light, even if only temporarily (I find most college students to be quite annoying; yes I AM fairly weird). Also, I know full well that I am generalizing a whole lot here, and donít presume to be a genius or something; I am simply here to learn, as are you I assume.
quote:By now you are of course wondering what the heck this has to do with my argument. Well, basically, as a general thing, I am trying to make a case for an Absolute and do so because I feel that relativism is only slowing down humans and will in the long run fail which ever way you look at it. After writing this sentence, I felt an urge to write an entire book on how the very concept of relativism is flawed, but as you can tell from what I have already written, I am in no mood for further argument and now feel itís time to actually critique the processes we are using to argue rather then follow the tried-and-true-and-futile method of arguing back and forth in a relativistic society in which any one can make just about anything an argument. There has to be a line drawn some where otherwise progress will be greatly slowed to a snail-pace in which humans require some type of global disaster of catastrophic proportions every time in order to implement any type of laws and legislation in a global level.
quote: When I gave you references to the Quran (Iím assuming that you never ended up reading any of it) I hope you did not think that I was trying to get you to get in the habit of calling your self a muslim and going out to perform a bunch of rituals and take part in religious dogmas and pray five times a day and talk to completely provincial and closed-minded people just because of a couple of words that I proclaimed. It was my sincere attempt to help you understand that the Absolute does have credibility.
quote:It is erroneous to regard relativism as equivalent to amorality.
quote:but then were you not complaining about short termism, people looking for quick solutions?
quote:I do agree that we live in an era where we are increasingly looking for short term gains, but this is a consequence of people being denied the benefits of long term investment, and so simply have no incentive to make long term investments.
quote:This is true, but I would also ask is it fair even to ask others to change their beliefs unless you are willing to entertain the notion of doing likewise? Should you be asking of others that which you are not yourself willing to offer?
quote:Clearly, assuming a context free environment is simpler and quicker to work with than having to develop conclusions that are relevant to the context you are working in
quote:quote:but then were you not complaining about short termism, people looking for quick solutions Who in their right mind would complain about people looking for quick solutions? I am utterly at a loss as to how a quick solution is inferior to a long dragged out one. (all other things being equal of course). I was complaining about people looking for quick GAINS, not quick solutions. And even in this, I was not necessarily referring to it in terms of time, a lack of investment in the long term could just as well come from arrogance (one would rather delve in the relative), the removal of which doesnít have some sort of time limit (it could happen quickly, after a long time, or never).
quote:but then were you not complaining about short termism, people looking for quick solutions
quote:think practically for a second, could you imagine even one person in the history of online forums who actually changed their minds online and converted religion while having a discussion with words and sentences across the globe? Or even slightly changed their spiritual orientation?
quote:Iím sure, however, that it wouldnít be too difficult for you to imagine the majority of people, including you and me, who only strengthen their own pre-conceived notions and biases by coming to online forums. This is referred to as selective attention in psychology; essentially to look for things that confirm our biases.
quote:I consider atheism to be a religion since, Christians believe in Christ, Buddhists believe in Buddha and atheists believe to not believe
quote:Originally posted by tony6789.........wow...........lotsa qoutes.....- Big T
quote:But, looking in general with regard to issues of relativism and absolute moral codes. At the time the Quran was written, it was an era when both slavery and polygamy were accepted practice, and the Quran supported both concepts. Polygamy is still accepted by the proponents of Islam, although there is no doubt that it is beginning to fall out of favour, while slavery is now condemned as much by Muslims as by any other mainstream religion (all of which had supported slavery in the past).The question is, if the values of religion are absolute, then can it be possible to support slavery in one century, and then condemn slavery in the next? On the other hand, if one accepts that morality has to function within the context of its time and its social environment, then one can say that in the era when slavery was condoned by the Quran and the Bible, it was appropriate for that era, but no longer appropriate to the changed circumstances of the modern era.
quote:Originally posted by hddd12345678910Have I shown you one aspect of Islam that you found disagreeable?
quote:But you missed my whole point. I have accepted the absolute, you have not, so if the Quran is telling me that all the questions as to how to best and most efficiently live my life while taking into consideration the well being of the rest of humanity are answered within the book, then what need do I have to look for new questions?
quote:Firstly, most of the quotes you gave relate to how Muslims should treat each other, not how it should treat the rest of humanity.
quote:Originally posted by hddd12345678910quote:Firstly, most of the quotes you gave relate to how Muslims should treat each other, not how it should treat the rest of humanity.Your argument makes no sense. What do you expect them to do, go into the other society, and fight whoever is oppressing there own people? Thatís like saying the United States embarking on a mission to save a homeless person in another personís societyÖAnd keep in mind the world was not globalized as it is today. It wasnít even as though the other societies at the time besides the Islamic society were weak in strength. But besides this, there are plenty of verses, which I donít have time to find right now, that relate to leaving people at peace as long as they wish to remain at peace.
quote:Originally posted by mcdukeHere's an interesting thought. In the bible God can be angry, jealous, and loving.
quote: How about bored? Let's face it, being all powerful and able to do anything anytime you want sounds like a perfect recipe for boredom eventually.
quote:Originally posted by mcdukeInorder to prove if God exist or not, don't you need to know what religious version to prove or disprove? I think there's a reference in the Bible to Gods, not just God. So, if there is more then one, which one/ones would you like to prove/disprove? I would think that a God would provide better order in the world, ya know, like just one religion, and if someone gets the idea of starting a different/wrong religion God would pay him/her a visit(or atleast send an angel) to say,"hey, that's wrong". I would think an all powerful being would be able to do that. If not, then the confusion here must be on purpose, as in, We're entertainment for a supreme being that is bored. Or, maybe just a science project. Of course there is the possibility that we're just nature at work void of any divine intentions.
quote:Originally posted by UltimaWhat I dont get is that there is neither "proof" for or against some super deity behind the scenes. So why would someone jump to the conclusion that one exists? Maybe back in the day before we had any scientific method or knowledge it was the simplest answer to the great question; Why? But now we have scientific method and a nice simple answer that the universe just is and runs on natural interactions between stuff and other stuff. So why would anyone continue with deity worship? Personally I embrace EVERYTHING as if it were God because clearly we are all part of the grand interconnected system that is life....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGINAssuming that there is a hidden super being running the show isn't exactly justified in my mind. Why do I need to think that there is one?? When the world merrily goes on working without me doing so in a reasonably predictable way from currently available evidence. If suddenly we find that everything we thought was true breaks down and four giant horsemen come flying about my head I might be inclined to change my mind