Debate?

Author: Yassine

Posts

Total: 327
#91
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
the US Constitution
Is not intrinsically good or bad. It can have utility and its wording can be used to justify inhumane acts. This is also true of the quran.
There is such a thing as authority in interpretation & scholarship & religion. 
Appeal to authority. Also why should we care what the quran says or what it means (If those aren't the same thing) if we cannot demonstrate that the information is accurate?
Scripture is the source of authority for religious morality or rationality or spirituality
Appeal to authority. Also the quran is the claim and the claim is never sufficient evidence in and of itself.
Protestantism took authority away from Catholicism (probably for good reason), as did Salafism -illegitimately- take it away from the classical traditional schools.
How do you know any of them are wrong? How do you know you are right? The claim is not the evidence so it must be something that we could independently verify even if the quran did not exist. Some test for god(s) that would come back positive or negative when applied to this universe. Now if we simply grant the existence of some necessary being your work is still ahead of you connecting whatever this thing is to your particular flavor of belief.
Topic's author
#92
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Is not intrinsically good or bad.
- As far the as American morality & American Law is concerned, it IS the reference of Good & Bad.


It can have utility and its wording can be used to justify inhumane acts. This is also true of the quran.
- Only if done authoritatively. Regardless, this is irrelevant to authority in interpretation, which is our subject. 


Appeal to authority.
- Wrong. "Authority is, therefore it's true" = appeal to authority. "Authority is, therefore it's authoritative/binding/valuable" = defeasible reasoning, which is the basis of all things axiology (ethics, aesthetics, politics & law). All Law is "appeal to authority".


Also why should we care what the quran says or what it means (If those aren't the same thing) if we cannot demonstrate that the information is accurate?
- Again, that's irrelevant to authority. As far as Muslim ethics & law are concerned, what the Quran says is authoritative ; the same way the US Constitution is authoritative for every American citizen, regardless of its "accuracy".


Appeal to authority.
- Nope. If you don't understand something, better leave it.


Also the quran is the claim and the claim is never sufficient evidence in and of itself.
- Meaning? Point?


How do you know any of them are wrong? How do you know you are right?
- How do you know who's right to interpret the US Constitution?


The claim is not the evidence so it must be something that we could independently verify even if the quran did not exist.
- Is there a logic to this contention? There doesn't seem to be any. Authority over the interpretation of the Quran must be dictated by the Quran itself by lead of the Prophet (pbuh), the sole source of authority in Islam.


Some test for god(s) that would come back positive or negative when applied to this universe. Now if we simply grant the existence of some necessary being your work is still ahead of you connecting whatever this thing is to your particular flavor of belief.
- This is completely off topic. But sure, what's your question?
#93
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
As far the as American morality & American Law is concerned, it (The us constitution) IS the reference of Good & Bad.
And what makes that more than a subjective opinion
Only if done authoritatively. Regardless, this is irrelevant to authority in interpretation, which is our subject. 
I don't see why an interpretation would help without some external evidence.
Wrong. "Authority is, therefore it's true" = appeal to authority. "Authority is, therefore it's authoritative/binding/valuable" = defeasible reasoning, which is the basis of all things axiology (ethics, aesthetics, politics & law). All Law is "appeal to authority".
I'm not sure what the difference is and I'm not sure what makes laws more than the prevailing subjective opinion.
Again, that's irrelevant to authority. As far as Muslim ethics & law are concerned, what the Quran says is authoritative ; the same way the US Constitution is authoritative for every American citizen, regardless of its "accuracy".
Why should I accept thecquram over any other holy book that makes a similar claim? Muslims believing something is not evidence it's an appeal to popularity and a category error.
Also what is legal in the United States is not necessarily what any given American citizen considers moral or right so that's another category error. Also also the constitution can be amended if enough people feel something unjust is taking place as a result of the constitution.
Nope. If you don't understand something, better leave it.
If you can't explain something adequately better to leave it out of a debate.
How do you know who's right to interpret the US Constitution?
Because it is a legal document there are humans whose job it is to make rulings. The are appointed to the task by other people. All the people involved are independently observable and verifiable and it is still just subjective opinion so right and wrong may be intrinsically meaningless. You could ask how do you know it is lawful but that is tautologically true.
The claim is not the evidence so it must be something that we could independently verify even if the quran did not exist.
- Is there a logic to this contention? 
Yes. That something is written in a book does not make a thing true therefore truth should be demonstrable without a book.
Authority over the interpretation of the Quran must be dictated by the Quran itself by lead of the Prophet (pbuh), the sole source of authority in Islam.
What makes this more than subjective opinion?
Some test for god(s) that would come back positive or negative when applied to this universe. Now if we simply grant the existence of some necessary being your work is still ahead of you connecting whatever this thing is to your particular flavor of belief.
- This is completely off topic. But sure, what's your question?
That was not a question it was a statement. Even if we grant some necessary being (which you have not demonstrated only baldly asserted) that would still not necessitate that this necessary being would in any way resemble allah as described in the quran. They are separate claims that must be demonstrated seperately.
#94
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
little steve.
So the violence of the yahweh god will be dishonestly ignored in your biased argument.
#95
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Yassine
C. Therefore, God exits. [ as defined in the Quran ]
None of your arguments prove it's the God as defined by the Koran. I think it's a pantheistic type of platform... everything is god. You can use the same attributes you gave in your argument. Except for outside of creation... that makes no sense. Although, i can concede maybe a panentheistic god... it doesn't matter really. The point would be we are all god. You can't disprove that through your arguments. But i can disprove god is only for a select few found in one religion in the corner of the earth... pshhh common man.  

#96
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Yassine
I didn't really understand that.
Can you make it more simple? 
I highly doubt the Quran even speaks of God this way. Why weren't you able to point to the verses as well?
Topic's author
#97
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I didn't really understand that.
- Which part exactly?


Can you make it more simple?
- Umm... it is simple. In an even simpler expression, it is to say that:
1. All creation -whose existence is not self-sufficient- is contingent on a creator, a necessary being whose existence is self-sufficient. 
2. This creator must be singular, for supposing multiple such creators would lead to a logical contradiction.
3. This creator must be transcendent (i.e. different from the creation), for it is not contingent as creation is.
4. This creator must be absolute, for all creation is equally contingent on the creator.
=> I hope this makes it easier to understand.


I highly doubt the Quran even speaks of God this way. Why weren't you able to point to the verses as well?
- This is a very standard definition in Islamic Theology. I referred the chapter, Surah 112 (Ikhalas, aka Tawheed):
(112:1) Qul Huwa Allahu ahad = "Say, He is Allah, the One" (1).
(112:2) Allahu assamad = "Allah, the Absolute [Self-Sufficient Master He on Whom all depend]" (2).
(112:3) Lam yalid walam yoolad = "He begets not, nor is He begotten" (3)
(112:4) Walam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad = "And there is none like unto Him" (4)
=> Theologically, inferred from the scripture, Allah is: singular (1), absolute (2), self-sufficient/necessary (2-3) &  transcendent -disjoint from creation- being (4-3). Thus, conceptually, a being which has all these 4 attributes is hence identified with Allah. All the other attributes of God follow naturally from these.

Topic's author
#98
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Outplayz
None of your arguments prove it's the God as defined by the Koran.
- It literally does just that.


I think it's a pantheistic type of platform... everything is god. You can use the same attributes you gave in your argument. Except for outside of creation... that makes no sense.
- Except =/= Same attributes. You're contradicting yourself, or rather just saying whatever you feel like.


Although, i can concede maybe a panentheistic god... it doesn't matter really. The point would be we are all god. You can't disprove that through your arguments. But i can disprove god is only for a select few found in one religion in the corner of the earth... pshhh common man. 
- I can EASILY disprove that we are all god, for the very simple reason that we are all contingent beings -unless you mean by 'god' some creature thing, which is irrelevant to this whole topic.
Topic's author
#99
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
And what makes that more than a subjective opinion
- Regardless, authoritative still.


I don't see why an interpretation would help without some external evidence.
- As long as it's authoritative, which is the subject at hand, which you brought up by denying authority in interpretation, to which I responded in objection, & here we are.


I'm not sure what the difference is and I'm not sure what makes laws more than the prevailing subjective opinion.
- OMG! It is what it is, moving on.


Why should I accept the Quran over any other holy book that makes a similar claim? Muslims believing something is not evidence it's an appeal to popularity and a category error.
- Again, this isn't about "Muslims believe, therefore it's true". It's about "The Quran says, therefore it's authoritative (to Muslims)".

Also what is legal in the United States is not necessarily what any given American citizen considers moral or right so that's another category error.
- Again, irrelevant. Regardless, it's still authoritative. Keep up friend.


Also also the constitution can be amended if enough people feel something unjust is taking place as a result of the constitution.
- Sure...


If you can't explain something adequately better to leave it out of a debate.
- God knows I tried my best...


Because it is a legal document there are humans whose job it is to make rulings. The are appointed to the task by other people. All the people involved are independently observable and verifiable
- Exactly! & who are these people again? Those with proper authority & qualification, hence what I said.


and it is still just subjective opinion so right and wrong may be intrinsically meaningless. You could ask how do you know it is lawful but that is tautologically true.
- For the gazinllionth time, this isn't about "true or false" or "good or bad", it's about authoritative or not. If you wish to discuss the morality & truth of things, we could talk about that separately.


Yes. That something is written in a book does not make a thing true therefore truth should be demonstrable without a book.
- It's evidence for authority & reference, regardless of truth, for it's irrelevant here ; we don't really talk about wether the US Constitution is "true" or "false"... But sure, to establish the truth of things one must follow the conventional ways of proof & evidence. 


What makes this more than subjective opinion?
- It's authoritative. Nuff said.


That was not a question it was a statement. Even if we grant some necessary being (which you have not demonstrated only baldly asserted)
- If you have an actual objection to my demonstration, then do establish it, otherwise dismissed.


that would still not necessitate that this necessary being would in any way resemble allah as described in the quran.
- It does, by definition. Seriously man, please do keep up.


They are separate claims that must be demonstrated seperately.
- No. You need to stop with this nonsense. I can't be saying the same thing over & over & over.

#100
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
this isn't about "true or false"

Then we are having a separate conversation this,whole time because all I asked is if you could prove your claims true or not.

If you have an actual objection to my demonstration, then do establish it, otherwise dismissed.
Yes ones was never provided. All you provided was a claim and a definition.
#101
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Yassine
- Which part exactly?
The formulation of it.
Never really understood it the last time I read one of those and still don't.


1. All creation -whose existence is not self-sufficient- is contingent on a creator, a necessary being whose existence is self-sufficient. 
2. This creator must be singular, for supposing multiple such creators would lead to a logical contradiction.
3. This creator must be transcendent (i.e. different from the creation), for it is not contingent as creation is.
4. This creator must be absolute, for all creation is equally contingent on the creator.
=> I hope this makes it easier to understand.
Yeah this was better.
Why does the creator need to be self-sufficient?
Why does having more than 1 creator lead to contradictions?
Why does the creator require to be different from what it had created?
Why does it have to be absolute?


- This is a very standard definition in Islamic Theology. I referred the chapter, Surah 112 (Ikhalas, aka Tawheed):
(112:1) Qul Huwa Allahu ahad = "Say, He is Allah, the One" (1).
(112:2) Allahu assamad = "Allah, the Absolute [Self-Sufficient Master He on Whom all depend]" (2).
(112:3) Lam yalid walam yoolad = "He begets not, nor is He begotten" (3)
(112:4) Walam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad = "And there is none like unto Him" (4)
=> Theologically, inferred from the scripture, Allah is: singular (1), absolute (2), self-sufficient/necessary (2-3) &  transcendent -disjoint from creation- being(4-3). Thus, conceptually, a being which has all these 4 attributes is hence identified with Allah. All the other attributes of God follow naturally from these.
(112:1) God is one. That is enough for me. 
(112:2) one states God being eternal. Nothing about being self-sufficient. Why can't God be not self-sufficient but still be eternal?
(112:3) Never alive. What are you saying with this verse?
(112:4) No equivalent yes. What are you saying with this verse?

Are you logically deducing this? 

Topic's author
#102
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Then we are having a separate conversation this,whole time because all I asked is if you could prove your claims true or not.
- Wrong. & I reiterate: "...which is the subject at hand, which you brought up by denying authority in interpretation, to which I responded in objection, & here we are". The conversation was *not* about true or false, it was about authority of interpretation. Nonetheless, if you wish to talk about the truth of the Quran & Islamic morality, then I shall surely oblige. 


Yes ones was never provided. All you provided was a claim and a definition.
- And? Where is the objection?
Topic's author
#103
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The formulation of it.
Never really understood it the last time I read one of those and still don't.
- It's an argument built on a progression of premises & conclusions. Such as:
1, A is B.
2. B is C.
3. Therefore, A is C.
4. C is D.
5. D is E.
C. Therefore, A is E.


Yeah this was better.
Why does the creator need to be self-sufficient?
- A non self-sufficient being is a being that relies on an exterior cause for its existence, thus is contingent on that exterior cause, thus can not be the source of creation, for it is itself created.


Why does having more than 1 creator lead to contradictions?
- As established, having two non-identical creators (self-sufficient) entails that one of them is contingent on the other, which contradicts the fact that they are both self-sufficient. Therefore, there can't be more than one creator (self-sufficient being).


Why does the creator require to be different from what it had created?
- Well, this one is quite evident. A creator can not be both self-sufficient & contingent at the same time, or uncaused & caused at the same time, or creator & created at the same time.


Why does it have to be absolute?
- This follows naturally from having a singular creator. Prior to existence, all things are equally inexistent, which means willing into existence some over others is an absolutely random act (i.e. absolutely free choice), which means willing into existence all things is just as random -& free. This is what we mean by absolute -free- will.


(112:1) God is one. That is enough for me. 
- 'Ahad' means singular, not just 'One'.


(112:2) one states God being eternal. Nothing about being self-sufficient. Why can't God be not self-sufficient but still be eternal?
- 'Samad' in Arabic means Self-Sufficient Master He on Whom all depend. Aka, 'necessary being'.


(112:3) Never alive. What are you saying with this verse?
- That verse is basically denying any relationship or relativity between God & His creation.


(112:4) No equivalent yes. What are you saying with this verse?
- God is disjoint from His creation, as there is no common thing between the two.


Are you logically deducing this? 
- Literally, yes.
#104
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Yassine
1, A is B.
2. B is C.
3. Therefore, A is C.
4. C is D.
5. D is E.
C. Therefore, A is E.

With context it is more difficult to follow along. The one you later on was better to follow along. 

- A non self-sufficient being is a being that relies on an exterior cause for its existence, thus is contingent on that exterior cause, thus can not be the source of creation, for it is itself created.
Why can't God be sufficient on us and still be the creator? You know take our souls as part of his sufficiency and then create another soul only to be used to fuel the creator. Why is my argument here wrong?

- As established, having two non-identical creators (self-sufficient) entails that one of them is contingent on the other, which contradicts the fact that they are both self-sufficient. Therefore, there can't be more than one creator (self-sufficient being).
Why do they have to be identical?
A God can be in-charge of life
B God can be in-charge of non-life
Both have done their job at creating and now are sitting back.
Why can't this be the case?

- Well, this one is quite evident. A creator can not be both self-sufficient & contingent at the same time, or uncaused & caused at the same time, or creator & created at the same time.
You didn't really address what I said. Why can't the creator still be the creator if it is like humans?
- This follows naturally from having a singular creator. Prior to existence, all things are equally inexistent, which means willing into existence some over others is an absolutely random act (i.e. absolutely free choice), which means willing into existence all things is just as random -& free. This is what we mean by absolute -free- will.
Still does not help me understand with what you mean. From what we know everything has a cause and effect. What do you have that can state Creatio Ex Nihilio is possible or the cause and effect principle is wrong?
 'Ahad' means singular, not just 'One'.
That wasn't the one I was confused about.
- 'Samad' in Arabic means Self-Sufficient Master He on Whom all depend. Aka, 'necessary being'.
Where did you get this from. Wikipedia states Samad means Everlasting does not mean it is self sufficient. How did you get self-sufficient from everlasting and where are you getting the meaning of these words from?
- That verse is basically denying any relationship or relativity between God & His creation.
Why can't God be alive but in a different universe of something outside ours?
- God is disjoint from His creation, as there is no common thing between the two.
Why is this the case and why can't there be any other way?
- Literally, yes.
Okay.
I would like to know how you defined your words. A link to them would help instead of you telling me this word means this. 

#105
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
which you brought up by denying authority in interpretation
No sir I did not. You brought it up by making yet another claim. This one about authority. You have offered no evidence of that either.
Nonetheless, if you wish to talk about the truth of the Quran & Islamic morality, then I shall surely oblige. 
Ok what I want to know is how have you determined the truth of the quran without using the quran or the claims/authority of men as your evidence.
All you provided was a claim and a definition.
- And? Where is the objection?
The claim is not and can never be adequate evidence for itself and the definition has provided a description not a being we can observe. In fact your definition would seem to describe a being whose existence we can never confirm in any way. From my perspective it's hard to tell the difference between something that we can never confirm and something which does not exist.
#106
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Yassine
I can EASILY disprove that we are all god, for the very simple reason that we are all contingent beings
That disproves your type of god, not the god i am claiming. Your type of god is suppose to be for everyone, however, everyone is different. Everyone goes their own ways, everyone has their own god they pray to, everyone experiences their god how they are suppose to, etc. We are all subjective beings on our own journey. Only a god that is "everything" can explain this subjectivity. In such a case, no one is left out. Everyone is an imagine or a piece of the puzzle which is this god (i don't even call god anymore bc it's so much more than that term, but one can say it's appropriate). 

On the flip side, your god is only for you. You think you are interpreting everything correctly, and same with whoever else agrees with you... but, the religion is still flawed. If it was perfect, the middle east wouldn't look the way it looks today. Satanic music has saved more people than any major religion. But that's just one side of it that really isn't the issue here... the issue here is your god is your god. I don't hate it or think it shouldn't be your god... but your god doesn't make any sense to me. You can't explain this. Like i said in the beginning of this thread, the 'god' i believe in has given me everything. Understanding, direction, spiritual experience, and most importantly... if i live how i am suppose to, i will also get my paradise. On the flip side, the humans that wrote the Koran didn't think of people like me... this is proof your god makes no sense, to me. You are not promising me direction, etc etc... and most importantly paradise. You say i will be eternal in paradise... that is literally one of my worst nightmares... i would correlate that to hell. 

How does the Koran answer that? Did the humans think that some people might think paradise is living and dying like myself, did it think of some people think it's reincarnation, did it think some people just want to be in a fairy tale? Your god is only made for you. And again, my platform answers why this is... and since my god is everything... it explains why i'm like this, why you're like how you are, and why others are how they are... That answers my question... your god doesn't. Like i said, that disproves your god to me and i haven't heard of a convincing enough argument otherwise, at least from Christians... that's why i'm genuinely interested in your take on this bc i don't know what the Koran promises... but if it's 72 virgins for eternity, or even eternity alone... i'm not kidding... i consider that to be hell. Even if the air is made out of heroin.

This question is one of my key points, there's others... but, if you can't get passed this than the others are moot. My paradise is eternally living and dying... Living and dying means i will live infinite realities as a corporeal being experiencing that reality dying and experiencing another reality (since my true self is part of an infinite consciousness 'god' that manifests as corporeal being to experience). That is literally my paradise. My platform gives me this, but your god doesn't even know people like me exist.... i wonder why.
Topic's author
#107
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Outplayz
That disproves your type of god, not the god i am claiming. Your type of god is suppose to be for everyone, however, everyone is different. Everyone goes their own ways, everyone has their own god they pray to, everyone experiences their god how they are suppose to, etc. We are all subjective beings on our own journey. Only a god that is "everything" can explain this subjectivity. In such a case, no one is left out. Everyone is an imagine or a piece of the puzzle which is this god (i don't even call god anymore bc it's so much more than that term, but one can say it's appropriate). 

On the flip side, your god is only for you. You think you are interpreting everything correctly, and same with whoever else agrees with you... but, the religion is still flawed. If it was perfect, the middle east wouldn't look the way it looks today. Satanic music has saved more people than any major religion. But that's just one side of it that really isn't the issue here... the issue here is your god is your god. I don't hate it or think it shouldn't be your god... but your god doesn't make any sense to me. You can't explain this. Like i said in the beginning of this thread, the 'god' i believe in has given me everything. Understanding, direction, spiritual experience, and most importantly... if i live how i am suppose to, i will also get my paradise. On the flip side, the humans that wrote the Koran didn't think of people like me... this is proof your god makes no sense, to me. You are not promising me direction, etc etc... and most importantly paradise. You say i will be eternal in paradise... that is literally one of my worst nightmares... i would correlate that to hell. 
- What are talking about man? If God exists, He is certainly not contingent on your feelings of Him! What utter nonsense is this??? Indeed, we are talking about different things here. You are speaking from whims & fantasy, I'm not.


How does the Koran answer that? Did the humans think that some people might think paradise is living and dying like myself, did it think of some people think it's reincarnation, did it think some people just want to be in a fairy tale? Your god is only made for you. And again, my platform answers why this is... and since my god is everything... it explains why i'm like this, why you're like how you are, and why others are how they are... That answers my question... your god doesn't. Like i said, that disproves your god to me and i haven't heard of a convincing enough argument otherwise, at least from Christians... that's why i'm genuinely interested in your take on this bc i don't know what the Koran promises... but if it's 72 virgins for eternity, or even eternity alone... i'm not kidding... i consider that to be hell. Even if the air is made out of heroin. 

This question is one of my key points, there's others... but, if you can't get passed this than the others are moot. My paradise is eternally living and dying... Living and dying means i will live infinite realities as a corporeal being experiencing that reality dying and experiencing another reality (since my true self is part of an infinite consciousness 'god' that manifests as corporeal being to experience). That is literally my paradise. My platform gives me this, but your god doesn't even know people like me exist.... i wonder why.
- Just because you believe it is???

Topic's author
#108
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why can't God be sufficient on us and still be the creator? You know take our souls as part of his sufficiency and then create another soul only to be used to fuel the creator. Why is my argument here wrong?
- You mean 'contingent'? No it can't, for a contingent being can not be a creator. 'Contingent' means that change from one state to another requires an exterior agent, which means a contingent being is not truly in control of his own fate, let alone the fate of others. It's nice & fanciful to think about all the mythical ways God is or can be, but these notions rarely hold against logical rigor.


Why do they have to be identical?
- As demonstrated, for otherwise you encounter a contradiction, as shown.


A God can be in-charge of life
B God can be in-charge of non-life
Both have done their job at creating and now are sitting back.
Why can't this be the case?
- This simply makes them non-god beings, for they are contingent beings, for they are restricted by an exterior limitation or agent. 


You didn't really address what I said. Why can't the creator still be the creator if it is like humans?
- If it's like humans, then it's contingent. It can not be contingent & creator at the same time.


Still does not help me understand with what you mean. From what we know everything has a cause and effect. What do you have that can state Creatio Ex Nihilio is possible or the cause and effect principle is wrong?
- Cause & effect principle? You mean 'sufficient reason'? The aforementioned argument assumes the 'sufficient reason' principle indeed. 


Where did you get this from. Wikipedia states Samad means Everlasting does not mean it is self sufficient. How did you get self-sufficient from everlasting and where are you getting the meaning of these words from?
- From their proper sources, aka Tafsir. Narrated Ibn Abbas, "They said, 'what is Samad?' he (pbuh) said, it is He on whom all is dependent" [Maftih al-Ghayb]. The word essentially means the eternal on whom all depends.
- You can find the same meaning in many translations of the verse:
MUHSIN KHAN
Allah-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need).
PICKTHALL
Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
YUSUF ALI
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
MUFTI TAQI USMANI
Allah is Besought of all, needing none.
ABUL ALA MAUDUDI
Allah, Who is in need of none and of Whom all are in need
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
Allah, the Eternal Refuge.
DR. MUSTAFA KHATTAB
Allah—the Sustainer ˹needed by all˺.


Why can't God be alive but in a different universe of something outside ours?
- That would make Him contingent, thus not divine anymore.


Why is this the case and why can't there be any other way?
- Any other way = contingent being =/= God.


Okay. I would like to know how you defined your words. A link to them would help instead of you telling me this word means this. 
- I'm not defining anything, this is how the theologians & exegetists define the words. [https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=6&tSoraNo=112&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1]
Topic's author
#109
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
No sir I did not. You brought it up by making yet another claim. This one about authority. You have offered no evidence of that either.
- Ahem: "The way you personally interpret the quran does not prevent others from interpreting it in a way that does seem to suggest that violence is more or less compulsory".


Ok what I want to know is how have you determined the truth of the quran without using the quran or the claims/authority of men as your evidence.
- That is, to establish the proposition: The Quran (as a recitation) = revelation from God. This proposition can be illustrated as: [[ God =Inspiration=> Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) =Revelation=> Companions =Recitation=> Us ]]. Thus, we must show that the Recitation (the Quran) we currently possess is indeed the Revelation which the Prophet (pbuh) spoke to his companions ; we also must show that this Revelation is indeed an Inspiration from God. To establish the latter, we need to prove that Prophet (pbuh) is indeed a true prophet inspired by God.


The claim is not and can never be adequate evidence for itself and the definition has provided a description not a being we can observe.
- If you can observe it, then it's not a necessary being or a transcendent being anymore. 


In fact your definition would seem to describe a being whose existence we can never confirm in any way.
- Whose existence I just proved.


From my perspective it's hard to tell the difference between something that we can never confirm and something which does not exist.
- Wut???
#110
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Yassine
What are talking about man? If God exists, He is certainly not contingent on your feelings of Him! What utter nonsense is this??? Indeed, we are talking about different things here. You are speaking from whims & fantasy, I'm not.
How do you know i am talking from whims & fantasy (monism, pantheism, oneness, non-duality, panpsychism, etc. etc.)? You know nothing of my true beliefs yet you can already mock them? So, what you believe is not nonsense... but what other people believe is nonsense bc you don't like what they're saying.. got it; touche. How do you know god isn't feeling everything we are feeling? How do you know god doesn't know every single one of our stories? How do you know god isn't simultaneously both our happiness and sadness? You can pick anyone of these questions... but keep ignoring the main question (simple at that)... why doesn't your Koran know my paradise? What... you get to live for your paradise but i don't? That sounds pretty selfish man. It's almost like you're looking down on me. Is that how the Koran makes you feel towards me?  

- Just because you believe it is???
Umm... projection? 
#111
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
If you can observe it, then it's not a necessary being or a transcendent being anymore. 
Then you can never prove the existence of such a being. Period.

Topic's author
#112
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Then you can never prove the existence of such a being. Period.
- You seem pretty pushful there fella, I'm sure you are about to tell us why that is the case? Eh Mr. Period?
#113
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
Something unobservable cannot be demonstrated. Something that cannot be demonstrated cannot be proved. 

If any given being is transcendent it is unobservable.

If any given being is unobservable it is undeminstrable.

If any given being is undeminstrable it is impossible to distinguish from a being which does not exist.
Topic's author
#114
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Something unobservable cannot be demonstrated. Something that cannot be demonstrated cannot be proved. 
- Is this some hogwash logic? We talk about 'demonstration' in deductive reasoning, which -as it happens- concerns unobservable things. Ouch! Anything else?


If any given being is transcendent it is unobservable.

If any given being is unobservable it is undeminstrable.

If any given being is undeminstrable it is impossible to distinguish from a being which does not exist
- Invalid, unsound & false. Since your claim is "indemonstrable", I'm just gunna take your word for it & say it doesn't exist.
#115
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
You are the one who said transcendent beings are unobservable not I but if you are correct the logic is sound. As for deductive reasoning you still need some observable evidence to base your deductions upon.
Topic's author
#116
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
You are the one who said transcendent beings are unobservable not I
- Yes, by design. Immaterial things can not be observed...


but if you are correct the logic is sound. As for deductive reasoning you still need some observable evidence to base your deductions upon.
- No, not necessarily. Universals, for instance, are categorically unobservable.
#117
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Yassine
C. Therefore, God exits. [ as defined in the Quran ]


Several of your premises are suspect (for instance the oversimplified view of causality), but this conclusion really caught my eye. The way you toss in the underlined part almost as an afterthought is striking, when nothing in the argument implies anything whatsoever about any particular theistic God. Even if someone finds this argument convincing, it in no way implies the truth of any particular religion.

For example, God might exist, but be named Bob, not Allah. Or God might exist, but Mohammad was not his prophet. Or God might exist, but find our worship distasteful. Or God might exist, but there is no afterlife.

In short, even if the argument is sound, it could still be the case that nearly all the Quran is untrue.
#118
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Stronn
Several of your premises are suspect (for instance the oversimplified view of causality), but this conclusion really caught my eye. The way you toss in the underlined part almost as an afterthought is striking, when nothing in the argument implies anything whatsoever about any particular theistic God. Even if someone finds this argument convincing, it in no way implies the truth of any particular religion.

For example, God might exist, but be named Bob, not Allah. Or God might exist, but Mohammad was not his prophet. Or God might exist, but find our worship distasteful. Or God might exist, but there is no afterlife.

In short, even if the argument is sound, it could still be the case that nearly all the Quran is untrue.
Well stated.


#119
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
 No, not necessarily. Universals, for instance, are categorically unobservable.
If you are claiming this can also apply to beings I'm afraid I must disagree. 
Yes, by design. Immaterial things can not be observed...
Immaterial and imaginary are synonyms.
Topic's author
#120
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
If you are claiming this can also apply to beings I'm afraid I must disagree. 
- Take a philosophy class, this is pointless.


Immaterial and imaginary are synonyms.
- Take a philosophy class, I just can't.