-->
@Yassine
This also seems somewhat presuppositional. Can you get from creator to Allah without the Quran? Basically the outsider's test of faith.
A classic: From creator god ==> Specific God
Posts
Total:
1,007
-->
@ludofl3x
This also seems somewhat presuppositional.
- No, by definition.
Can you get from creator to Allah without the Quran?
- Not if you mean by 'Allah' God as defined in the Quran. The Arab Christians & Jews call God Allah too.
Basically the outsider's test of faith.
- It is exactly that. If you prove God as defined in the book to exist, then you should believe in that "Specific God".
-->
@Yassine
Yes but what reason do we have to believe that the Quran has any true spiritual knowledge to impart and what makes any being 'necessary'?
-->
@Yassine
Can you get from creator to Allah without the Quran?- Not if you mean by 'Allah' God as defined in the Quran. The Arab Christians & Jews call God Allah too.
Thanks for the honesty, at least it didn't take you too long to get there.
-->
@Yassine
There seems to be a logical conflict between,
1. One (unique & simple)
and
4. Transcendent (disjoint from HIs creation)
and
3. Absolutely Willing (omniscient & omnipotent)
Example A: (IFF) 4. (THEN) 3. is impossible.
Example B: (IFF) 1. (THEN) 4. is impossible.
Example B restated: (IFF) a creator god is the only thing that exists necessarily (AND) nothing exists that this god hath not wrought (THEN) everything is necessarily comprised wholly of bits of this type of proposed creator god.
Example A restated: (IFF) a god is fundamentally separate from the material realm (THEN) such a god cannot possibly interact with the material realm in any way whatsoever.
-->
@3RU7AL
I feel like the answer is going to be "because it's so mysterious / mystifying, that's how it works and you don't understand it, just believe it first then you'll understand it is true."
-->
@ludofl3x
I feel like the answer is going to be "because it's so mysterious / mystifying, that's how it works and you don't understand it, just believe it first then you'll understand it is true."
(IFF) god is "magnum mysterium" or "ein sof" (THEN) you should never-ever attempt to describe or explain it to anyone ever.
-->
@3RU7AL
Interesting. I wonder if that would lead then to "if I can't describe it to anyone, and they can't describe it to me, even if we agree, what are we even talking about, how would I know anything at all about this idea."
Which brings us right back to deism at best. And as I believe you pointed out already, if your deism is one where a god does not interact in any way with the material world in any way that makes its presence plain, and this god totally defies description, then I'm pretty sure it functions exactly the same as atheism.
-->
@ludofl3x
But it's not as pithy, and less open to emotional attacks like "Should we then kill all of the people who have birth defects?!?!" which no one thinks. "Survival of the fittest" some people think means "survival of the animal in the best physical shape" when it literally means "most fit to survive."
It's quite important to note that 'survival of the fittest' is a statement of what occurred in the past to produce the world as it is today. What it is not is a statement of how things should be because science doesn't deal with 'should' questions - that is the job of philosophers and politicians.
-->
@ludofl3x
Precisely....then I'm pretty sure it functions exactly the same as atheism.
-->
@keithprosser
The only quibble I'd have with that is that describing evolution as "statement of what occurred in the past to produce the world as it is today" gives the impression that evolution has somehow stopped doing so at some point, as if human beings were somehow the 'goal' of evolution rather than just another result. (this gives rise to the contention "Well then WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS AND NOT ONLY HUMANS?"). Evolution continues actively every regeneration of every species every day! If some new specimen is born or sprouts, that specimen's genetic information is always an imperfect copy of its progenitors'. The real difference today (last several millenia) is that we (humans) have added artificial selection to natural selection in the evolutionary toolbox. But I digress! Shame on me.
-->
@ludofl3x
But I digress! Shame on me.
You started the thread so i suppose you are allowed to digress!
I get your point.
Perhaps the crux is that Darwinism tells us what actually happens but makes no judgement of it. 'Survival of the fittest' is a principle that operates in the world just as F=Ma does. The difference is that F=Ma is an unbreakable law; 'Survival of the fittest' is not actually a law in the scientifc sense beause is can be circumvented - I don't think there is an official word for such things, so maybe we can call it a 'lawette'.
Of course another perspective is that human interention can be viewed as yet another factor in determining fiitness - we are a sort of 'super predator', not so different from a lion or tiger weeding out the individuals who don't meet certain criteria. So 'artificial selection' is a special case of natural selection rather than something completely different. Imagine looking at it from Martian's POV!
-->
@ludofl3x
Which brings us right back to deism at best. And as I believe you pointed out already, if your deism is one where a god does not interact in any way with the material world in any way that makes its presence plain, and this god totally defies description, then I'm pretty sure it functions exactly the same as atheism.
Deism was invented because there was no reasonable alternative to divine creation a few hundred years ago.
-->
@keithprosser
Deism was invented because there was no reasonable alternative to divine creation a few hundred years ago.
The English term was used at least as early as the sixteenth century and atheistic ideas and their influence have a longer history. Over the centuries, atheists have supported their lack of belief in gods through a variety of avenues, including scientific, philosophical, and ideological notions.
In the East, a contemplative life not centered on the idea of deities began in the sixth century BCE with the rise of Jainism, Buddhism, and various sects of Hinduism in India, and of Taoism in China. [LINK]
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes but what reason do we have to believe that the Quran has any true spiritual knowledge to impart and what makes any being 'necessary'?
- That's irrelevant to OP's question. As for the reason to believe the Quran has true knowledge, it is through preponderant evidence & proof. As to what makes a being 'necessary' or 'necessarily existent' it is that they are not contingent on (caused or explained by) any other being.
-->
@3RU7AL
Example B restated: (IFF) a creator god is the only thing that exists necessarily (AND) nothing exists that this god hath not wrought (THEN) everything is necessarily comprised wholly of bits of this type of proposed creator god.
- Wut...?! You don't seem to understand what IFF means. If the necessary being is singular, then all other possible beings must be contingent on this singular being, thus must all be distinct -disjoint- from it.
Example A restated: (IFF) a god is fundamentally separate from the material realm (THEN) such a god cannot possibly interact with the material realm in any way whatsoever.
- What is interact..?
-->
@secularmerlin
Thanks for the honesty, at least it didn't take you too long to get there.
- Get where? In case you are too slow to get it, this is completely irrelevant to my answer, Creator God = Specific God in Islam, for the 'Specific God' is defined -in the Quran- as the Singular Transcendent Absolute 'Creator God' ; once belief in the latter is established, so is belief in the former, BY DEFINITION.
-->
@Yassine
it is through preponderant evidence & proof.
Odd we have discussed the Quran before and I do not recall your ever meeting your burden of proof of the existence of any god(s) let alone Allah specifically.
-->
@Yassine
Thanks for the honesty, at least it didn't take you too long to get there.- Get where? In case you are too slow to get it, this is completely irrelevant to my answer, Creator God = Specific God in Islam, for the 'Specific God' is defined -in the Quran- as the Singular Transcendent Absolute 'Creator God' ; once belief in the latter is established, so is belief in the former, BY DEFINITION.
I'm pretty sure this,wasn't my post but I would be happy to respond with a question.
Do you Yassine know the difference between prescriptive and descriptive language?
-->
@Yassine
I'd say the OP is about the identity of the Creator. Would you say the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the same entity? if so one possible answer to the question 'Which one created the universe?' could be 'all of them'.- That's irrelevant to OP's question. As for the reason to believe the Quran has true knowledge, it is through preponderant evidence & proof. As to what makes a being 'necessary' or 'necessarily existent' it is that they are not contingent on (caused or explained by) any other being.
-->
@Yassine
You mean bigfoot.As to what makes a being 'necessary' or 'necessarily existent' it is that they are not contingent on (caused or explained by) any other being.
-->
@Yassine
- Interesting question. I don't know how Christians would answer this, but in Islam it be would redundant, for the proof of God's existence proceeds from the definition of God itself as stated in the Quran. From chapter 112 (Tawheed), Allah is: 1. One (unique & simple), 2. Self-sufficient (necessarily existent), 3. Absolutely Willing (omniscient & omnipotent), 4. Transcendent (disjoint from HIs creation). Once you prove that an omnipotent & omniscient, transcendent & singular God exists, that is Allah.
Funny, I would argue (and have) the same attributes (1-4) for the God of Christianity yet the teaching of the Qu'ran and the Bible differ in many respects so do you think we are speaking of the same God or that one of us is not worshiping God as He truly is? What we have in common is what we as Christians call the OT. Both religions acknowledge the OT yet the teachings of both religions contradict each other many times.
As a Christian, I believe that Mohammed was influenced by Christianity but here again the teachings differ from the NT teaching in what is contained in the Qu'ran.
-->
@3RU7AL
Interesting, 94% accuracy, as compared to other methods, but how does this relate to far off prophecy, like 100-400 years (in some cases over a 1000 years later)? And who used SWARM AI 2000-3000 years ago?Speaking of highly accurate prophecy... [LINK]
-->
@PGA2.0
You haven't produced any such prophesies.
-->
@3RU7AL
There seems to be a logical conflict between,1. One (unique & simple)and4. Transcendent (disjoint from HIs creation)and3. Absolutely Willing (omniscient & omnipotent)Example A: (IFF) 4. (THEN) 3. is impossible.Example B: (IFF) 1. (THEN) 4. is impossible.Example B restated: (IFF) a creator god is the only thing that exists necessarily (AND) nothing exists that this god hath not wrought (THEN) everything is necessarily comprised wholly of bits of this type of proposed creator god.
Example B is somewhat like a pantheistic view of "god" as all and in all and on par with what is (i.e., not transcendent). It would be like saying that a painting is part of the artist instead of created by the artist, or the painting and the artist are one, or the painting is derived from the same substance. A painting does not have the DNA of the artist, does it? Granted, it requires the artist for its existence.
Example A restated: (IFF) a god is fundamentally separate from the material realm (THEN) such a god cannot possibly interact with the material realm in any way whatsoever.
Why?
God is separate in His nature from the material realm. God is also not created whereas the material realm would be. The universe is contingent [i.e., occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on] on something else for its existence. God is not.
-->
@PGA2.0
I notice that swarm predictions require no interpretation(read room for error) they simply state a result and poof 94% accurate.
-->
@PGA2.0
How have you determined what any god(s) are or are not contingent on?
Indeed regardless which god(s) you subscribe too it would seem that the vast majority of god(s) are contingent on the humans that dreamt them up.
-->
@ludofl3x
I feel like the answer is going to be "because it's so mysterious / mystifying, that's how it works and you don't understand it, just believe it first then you'll understand it is true."
I like the atheist reason of a random chance universe coming into existence for who knows what as not magical.
I also like that the atheistic understanding (since they don't know) lacks what is necessary for certainty in knowing how it works or why it exists (i.e., it just is) yet they rule out the Christian God.
Basically, atheism answers nothing nor has the means for making it clear why the universe is here. It all starts from particular assumed starting points but can't make sense of why the universe is here.
-->
@PGA2.0
I like the atheist reason of a random chance universe coming into existence for who knows what as not magical.I also like that the atheistic understanding (since they don't know) lacks what is necessary for certainty in knowing how it works or why it exists (i.e., it just is) yet they rule out the Christian God.Basically, atheism answers nothing nor has the means for making it clear why the universe is here. It all starts from particular assumed starting points but can't make sense of why the universe is here.
Argument from increadulity (I can think of no other explanation therefore mine must be correct).
Also straw man fallacy (creating an flawed argument for the opposition for the express purpose of knocking it down).