-->
@Yassine
Independently verifiable evidence not the claims of men or those contained in the quran. Do you have any or not?
Debate?
Posts
Total:
327
-->
@Stronn
Several of your premises are suspect (for instance the oversimplified view of causality)
- If you have an objection against these premises, establish it, or else dismissed.
, 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.
- Is that a fact...? I don't know, you must be blind...
God is defined as a Necessary (necessarily existent) Singular (simple & unique) Absolute (with absolutely free will) & Transcendent (distinct from all creation) being, from the scriptural definition of Allah in Chapter 112 of the Quran....25. Therefore, a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists. [ follows from 7. & 15. & 18. & 24. ]C. Therefore, God exits. [ as defined in the Quran ]
***
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.
- That's true indeed.
-->
@secularmerlin
Independently verifiable evidence not the claims of men or those contained in the quran. Do you have any or not?
- Evidence for...?
-->
@Outplayz
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?
- Again, this is too whimsical. The existence of God -& God Himself- is independent of your perception or feeling. You can't say I believe god is... therefore god is.
Umm... projection?
- Glad you admit it.
-->
@Yassine
Your god is contingent upon the story of Muhammad, without that story your god doesn't exist.
-->
@Yassine
It is not whimsical. I have considered many ideas of god. I am agnostic btw... bc at this point, that is the only logical conclusion we can make absent hard evidence. However, i lean towards the spiritual side bc i do believe there is enough weak evidence to suspect there is more than just this. So at this point, all i can do is question which platforms make the most sense.this is too whimsical. The existence of God -& God Himself- is independent of your perception or feeling. You can't say I believe god is... therefore god is.
Although there are other reasons, the question i've asked throughout this isn't a frivolous question, it's an important question your religion can't answer which is why i don't believe it is a logical choice.
If i am considering which platform i favor the most, there are many traditions and philosophies that point towards this "oneness" platform that i've gone through... and, yes, in the end of the day... i used my own mind and simplified it to one thing... an infinite consciousness. The implications of which seem to be that it can manifest as a corporeal entity. if that implication alone is true, it answers most of the questions other platforms cannot, including the paradise paradox of the Abrahamic faiths. At least that's what i've noticed through debating it... no one has given me a reason not to lean towards this platform.
So, if you have something... just go at it. Simply telling me i can't "choose" this or that bc i feel like it ... one it's not true, and two you choose your religion so why can't i? But i truly don't want to get into that argument bc it's frivolous. I want you to tell me why my version of what i find to be "god" is incorrect?
The existence of God -& God Himself- is independent of your perception or feeling.
If the paradise question makes you feel uncomfortable... maybe you can tell me how you know this statement to be true... Why can't everything be "god"? Why am i wrong to pick the infinite consciousness platform?
-->
@Yassine
You can't say I believe god is... therefore god is.
Then why do you?
-->
@Yassine
- 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 can't you use the word sufficient?
Where is the logical rigour to get to God being sufficient?
- As demonstrated, for otherwise you encounter a contradiction, as shown.
No wait. I am speaking about 2 different creators which do different things. I didn't know you brought in the identical part. Why can't lets say 1 does 50% of the work and another does the other 50%. Why can't there two creators like this?
- This simply makes them non-god beings, for they are contingent beings, for they are restricted by an exterior limitation or agent.
My example was the point of 2 creators. Why can't the creators be like this. I'll copy it here again
A God can be in-charge of lifeB God can be in-charge of non-lifeBoth have done their job at creating and now are sitting back.Why can't this be the case?
- If it's like humans, then it's contingent. It can not be contingent & creator at the same time.
Why can't the creator be sufficient on humans souls and still be the creator?
- Cause & effect principle? You mean 'sufficient reason'? The aforementioned argument assumes the 'sufficient reason' principle indeed.
So Creatio Ex Nihilo can occur without you pointing of it happening?
- 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 KHANAllah-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need).PICKTHALLAllah, the eternally Besought of all!YUSUF ALIAllah, the Eternal, Absolute;MUFTI TAQI USMANIAllah is Besought of all, needing none.ABUL ALA MAUDUDIAllah, Who is in need of none and of Whom all are in needSAHIH INTERNATIONALAllah, the Eternal Refuge.DR. MUSTAFA KHATTABAllah—the Sustainer ˹needed by all˺.
That doesn't help me. Do you have a source which can translate words into English and you can verify it to be true? I used a source and I did not get self-sufficient instead of everlasting.
- That would make Him contingent, thus not divine anymore.
What do you even by contingent?
Why can't God be divine and be contingent?
- Any other way = contingent being =/= God.
This does not explain why God can't be a contingent being. Why being a contingent strips God out of its God-hood?
- 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]
I can't read Arabic. I would like you to find a website which you agree with the translations of the words then I can use the verse copy it there and see if the definition is changed to self-sufficient. I doubt it is because the site only said God was everlasting and I used another site as well.
Why are you using theologians tell you what it says in the Islamic holy book?
It was easy for me to find the definition yet you required theologians to even define words.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It is not whimsical. I have considered many ideas of god. I am agnostic btw... bc at this point, that is the only logical conclusion we can make absent hard evidence. However, i lean towards the spiritual side bc i do believe there is enough weak evidence to suspect there is more than just this. So at this point, all i can do is question which platforms make the most sense.Although there are other reasons, the question i've asked throughout this isn't a frivolous question, it's an important question your religion can't answer which is why i don't believe it is a logical choice.If i am considering which platform i favor the most, there are many traditions and philosophies that point towards this "oneness" platform that i've gone through... and, yes, in the end of the day... i used my own mind and simplified it to one thing... an infinite consciousness. The implications of which seem to be that it can manifest as a corporeal entity. if that implication alone is true, it answers most of the questions other platforms cannot, including the paradise paradox of the Abrahamic faiths. At least that's what i've noticed through debating it... no one has given me a reason not to lean towards this platform.
- So you're not looking for the truth but what suits you?
So, if you have something... just go at it. Simply telling me i can't "choose" this or that bc i feel like it ... one it's not true, and two you choose your religion so why can't i? But i truly don't want to get into that argument bc it's frivolous. I want you to tell me why my version of what i find to be "god" is incorrect?
- I already did, why don't me tell you why your version is correct?
If the paradise question makes you feel uncomfortable... maybe you can tell me how you know this statement to be true... Why can't everything be "god"? Why am i wrong to pick the infinite consciousness platform?
- Define 'god' then. God is in creator/first cause/necessary being can not be "everything".
-->
@disgusted
Then why do you?
- Still talking to yourself...?
Your god is contingent upon the story of Muhammad, without that story your god doesn't exist.
- Can you prove this?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why can't you use the word sufficient?
- Because it's the wrong word...?
Where is the logical rigor to get to God being sufficient?
- Wut?
No wait. I am speaking about 2 different creators which do different things. I didn't know you brought in the identical part. Why can't lets say 1 does 50% of the work and another does the other 50%. Why can't there two creators like this?
- If you have two different creators each 50%, then they are both restricted by each-other, which makes them contingent. A contingent being can not be God.
Why can't the creator be sufficient on humans souls and still be the creator?
- What is "sufficient on humans souls"?
So Creatio Ex Nihilo can occur without you pointing of it happening?
- Wut?
That doesn't help me. Do you have a source which can translate words into English and you can verify it to be true? I used a source and I did not get self-sufficient instead of everlasting.
- Then I can't help you. If translation of the verse is what you're looking for, then I provided not one not two but SEVEN from renown translations.
What do you even by contingent?Why can't God be divine and be contingent?
- God = necessary being =/= contingent being. God is uncaused first cause, thus can not be caused (aka contingent).
This does not explain why God can't be a contingent being. Why being a contingent strips God out of its God-hood?
- Because it strictly contradicts it.
I can't read Arabic. I would like you to find a website which you agree with the translations of the words then I can use the verse copy it there and see if the definition is changed to self-sufficient.
I doubt it is because the site only said God was everlasting and I used another site as well.Why are you using theologians tell you what it says in the Islamic holy book?
- Dude! I don't care what site you use, your obstinate ignorance is not my issue...
It was easy for me to find the definition yet you required theologians to even define words.
- LOL! You can't even read Arabic, get outta here!
-->
@Yassine
- Because it's the wrong word...?
What is the difference between contingent and sufficient?
- Wut?
You said:
but these notions rarely hold against logical rigor.
Why is this the case?
If you have two different creators each 50%, then they are both restricted by each-other, which makes them contingent. A contingent being can not be God.
They are not identical. They have different responsibilities but still are the two most powerful beings. One created life one created non-life. Why can't this be the case?
What do you mean by contingent?
- What is "sufficient on humans souls"?
That part wasn't the problem I have. Why can't God live off our souls and then when he has used them simply put that soul into a baby in order to revitalise it?
- Wut?
Creatio Ex Nihilo as in something from nothing. Can you point to an instance this happening?
- Then I can't help you. If translation of the verse is what you're looking for, then I provided not one not two but SEVEN from renown translations.
So you are incapable of translating the words or finding a site which you agrees with you to cite here? I find this rather annoying when you put in the effort to find "SEVEN" renown translations even though you sent me the arabic version not the one that is translated. Where was the translated version can you cite a source?
- God = necessary being =/= contingent being. God is uncaused first cause, thus can not be caused (aka contingent).
God equals necessary being while also being a contingent being?
So contingent is basically an uncaused being?
How can something be uncaused and exist?
- Because it strictly contradicts it.
How does this help me see your side again?
I'll repeat what I said "This does not explain why God can't be a contingent being. Why being a contingent strips God out of its God-hood?"
You said this earlier on:
his 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.
1) Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One,
2) Allah, the Eternal Refuge.
3) He neither begets nor is born,
4) Nor is there to Him any equivalent."
1st verse does support your statement.
2nd verse does not. Eternal does not mean God is self-sufficient.
3rd verse does support what you said with it.
4th verse does support what said with it.
I have a problem with the 2nd verse. Being eternal does not mean it is self-sufficient. I pointed to my souls example. Simply have God feed on souls and it would be eternal because when it is done with a soul simply give it to another baby and have it ready for a harvest. Yes some people die young or never get born but guess God got hungry. Why can't I say this and still God being eternal?
- Dude! I don't care what site you use, your obstinate ignorance is not my issue...
Why are you getting mad when theologians are assuming self-sufficiency when the verse only mentions "Eternal"?
Why are you putting theologians higher than the holy book that you follow?
- LOL! You can't even read Arabic, get outta here!
I guess when you don't have a point laugh? It was easy for me to find definition. Simply type in the verse and a site came up then I checked another site and they matched. What is your excuse for not being able to find the world sufficient in the 112:4 verse?
-->
@Yassine
I'll copy this here as well:
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.
-->
@Yassine
Obviously not.
Yes
-->
@disgusted
What do you actually get out of this charade you play years on end? you're going to die this way aren't you? sad indeed...
-->
@Yassine
- So you're not looking for the truth but what suits you?
Partially yes and partially no. What are you talking about? Everyone believes what suits them... If it was proven the Satanic Bible is the truth (to the level your confident about the Koran)... would you believe it? In the end of the day, what i am looking for... and what i have been looking for all my life as a child to now... is to find a platform that gives "everyone" their paradise. In the beginning, it wasn't even about me. It just turned out the implications favored myself as well. I didn't care about myself... i've always cared about others more. So yes and no... this platform suits me, and it also suits everyone else... including you. I will only disagree as far as you pretending like your truth is my truth as well. I will continue to point out how that is flawed, and how your god, as a defined him so far, does not get me to my truth.
- I already did, why don't me tell you why your version is correct?
I don't know if my version is correct, i just know it's more viable than your god as you are describing him to me. Some of the major points i already explained. My version gives me direction, experiences, confidence, how to live good, to then most importantly, get to what i would consider to be paradise. If your version is true... all i get is hell. If other versions are true, i'm either getting nothing or just another C-rate existence... so why would i believe in the Satanic Bible when i have a viable platform that gives me all the positives with little negatives? But again, and again, most importantly... your god only promises me hell... explain this paradox?
- Define 'god' then. God is in creator/first cause/necessary being can not be "everything".
How can any finite human truly define an infinite being? Huh? Like i told you, there are many philosophies and some eastern religions that attempt the definition of this "oneness" god. From what i have gotten from that is they all believe in a cosmic mind, infinite consciousness type of platform. Some implications that can be drawn from such a "god" is one...
It is the creator of everything bc it is all knowing, bc it is everything times infinity. If you can image a mind that is infinite just for a second... you will at least realize being everything means every person, situation, reality, everything is known by such a platform. We are the manifestations of just one reality it knows.
It is also the first cause bc it's, again, everything. There is nothing before it, and everything after it.
Necessary? In regards to it's necessary for us to be here... i don't know? This platform could have played out in many ways, for instance, we can be inside a computer that a random evolved humans created. And that is the destiny... to go deeper and deeper into simulations. In that case, the humans that started this were necessary. With that said, i think the version that makes the most sense is the it everyone (creator), it's always been (first cause), so therefore... yes, it's in a way necessary bc without it we wouldn't be here. But i am not sure how it would play out without it. But this version of it being everything answers more questions than not... so it is the most logical out of the others in this platform that "could be."
et
It's not my problem that your fantasies are more real to you than reality, the same can be said of the man who claims to be Napoleon. Some people naturally suffer from these afflictions.
-->
@Yassine
If you have an objection against these premises, establish it, or else dismissed.
One need look no further than premises 2 and 3. There are a number of problems with these premises. One problem is that things don't have a single cause. Causality is an unbroken chain of intertwined events leading back to the beginning of the universe. Another problem is that even if a contingent thing exists that has a cause, that does not mean that all contingent things have a cause. In fact, we know of contingent things that do not have any apparent cause: virtual particles. A third problem is that saying that the cause is something other than itself ignores the fact that the matter contained in something must exist prior to it being created. So the existence of that matter is part of the cause, and insofar as that matter is part of something, it is part of the cause of something. So things do cause themselves in this sense.
God is defined as a Necessary (necessarily existent) Singular (simple & unique) Absolute (with absolutely free will) & Transcendent (distinct from all creation) being, from the scriptural definition of Allah in Chapter 112 of the Quran....25. Therefore, a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists. [ follows from 7. & 15. & 18. & 24. ]C. Therefore, God exits. [ as defined in the Quran ]
You are cherry-picking only those attributes in the Quran that happen to match the argument. The Quran also says God is merciful, compassionate, and just, along with many other attributes. The argument makes no mention of those. So amending the conclusion to say that the argument specifically supports God as defined in the Quran is misleading.
- That's true indeed.
Then you should amend the conclusion to omit the part about the Quran.
-->
@Yassine
The only gods throughout history, and there were many, who teach or command their followers to fight have been gods of war in which those particular faiths have been involved in wars as a result. Is Allah another god of war?
-->
@Stronn
One need look no further than premises 2 and 3. There are a number of problems with these premises. One problem is that things don't have a single cause. Causality is an unbroken chain of intertwined events leading back to the beginning of the universe.
- Whatever that chain is, it's still an explanation. This is irrelevant to the premise.
Another problem is that even if a contingent thing exists that has a cause, that does not mean that all contingent things have a cause.
- Already addressed in the argument. Had you bothered to actually read it before objecting...
In fact, we know of contingent things that do not have any apparent cause: virtual particles.
- LOL! HAHAHAHAHA... You people being so funny making me laugh today.
A third problem is that saying that the cause is something other than itself ignores the fact that the matter contained in something must exist prior to it being created. So the existence of that matter is part of the cause, and insofar as that matter is part of something, it is part of the cause of something. So things do cause themselves in this sense.
- Regardless of the archaic nature of this concept (form vs. hyle), it doesn't change the validity of the argument either way.
You are cherry-picking only those attributes in the Quran that happen to match the argument.
- Not me, & not cherry-picking.
The Quran also says God is merciful, compassionate, and just, along with many other attributes. The argument makes no mention of those. So amending the conclusion to say that the argument specifically supports God as defined in the Quran is misleading.
- These are not attributes of essence, rather attributes of beauty. When specifying a definition of God in His essence, the attributes of essence (existence, oneness, transcendence & will) are those of concern, evidently.
Then you should amend the conclusion to omit the part about the Quran.
- No. Irrelevant.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What is the difference between contingent and sufficient?
- Nothing in common!
Why is this the case?
- Already addressed.
They are not identical. They have different responsibilities but still are the two most powerful beings. One created life one created non-life. Why can't this be the case?
- Powerful beings, sure. Divine necessary beings, no. The moment a being is contingent/restricted/caused, that being is not a necessary being, by definition.
What do you mean by contingent?
- A contingent being, a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed. That is, it needs an explanation for its existence & for the change that occurs within it. For instance, a being unable to create life is restricted, thus requires an explanation for that restriction -exterior explanation, which makes it a non-necessary being, i.e. a contingent being.
That part wasn't the problem I have. Why can't God live off our souls and then when he has used them simply put that soul into a baby in order to revitalise it?
- Whatever that god is, it's simply not a necessary being.
Creatio Ex Nihilo as in something from nothing. Can you point to an instance this happening?
- Which is why that requires an explanation, something can not come from nothing without an explanation.
So you are incapable of translating the words or finding a site which you agrees with you to cite here? I find this rather annoying when you put in the effort to find "SEVEN" renown translations even though you sent me the arabic version not the one that is translated. Where was the translated version can you cite a source?
- Already done. Refer to previous posts.
- God = necessary being =/= contingent being. God is uncaused first cause, thus can not be caused (aka contingent).God equals necessary being while also being a contingent being?
- "=/=" means 'distinct' *not* 'equal'.
So contingent is basically an uncaused being?
- No, have you actually read ANYTHING I said you'd know it's actually the opposite.
How can something be uncaused and exist?
- God. Refer to OP.
How does this help me see your side again?
- I suspect nothing does.
I'll repeat what I said "This does not explain why God can't be a contingent being. Why being a contingent strips God out of its God-hood?"
- I'll repeat again, God = necessary being =/= contingent being.
1) Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One,2) Allah, the Eternal Refuge.3) He neither begets nor is born,4) Nor is there to Him any equivalent."1st verse does support your statement.2nd verse does not. Eternal does not mean God is self-sufficient.3rd verse does support what you said with it.4th verse does support what said with it.
- Seriously, are you like dumb or something? Turn on the translations:
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˺.
I have a problem with the 2nd verse. Being eternal does not mean it is self-sufficient. I pointed to my souls example. Simply have God feed on souls and it would be eternal because when it is done with a soul simply give it to another baby and have it ready for a harvest. Yes some people die young or never get born but guess God got hungry. Why can't I say this and still God being eternal?
- How old are you?
Why are you getting mad when theologians are assuming self-sufficiency when the verse only mentions "Eternal"?
- LOL! I'm not getting mad, I'm LMAO this is too stupid.
Why are you putting theologians higher than the holy book that you follow?
- No. I'm putting the Prophet (pbuh) authority higher than your stupid source, as are the theologians. Narrated Ibn Abbas, "They said, 'what is Samad?' he (pbuh) said, it is He on whom all is dependent" [Maftih al-Ghayb].
I guess when you don't have a point laugh? It was easy for me to find definition. Simply type in the verse and a site came up then I checked another site and they matched. What is your excuse for not being able to find the world sufficient in the 112:4 verse?
- HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, this is just precious. Are you an ostrich? You like sticking your head in the sand pretending things don't exist...
-->
@Goldtop
The only gods throughout history, and there were many, who teach or command their followers to fight have been gods of war in which those particular faiths have been involved in wars as a result. Is Allah another god of war?
- Wow, you live! Hi there friend. I guess your ability to make witless remarks hasn't withered. Sup?
-->
@Yassine
- Nothing in common!
Where in the Islamic holy book does it state non-contingent?.
- Already addressed.
No you haven't. Do copy what you think you address in your next post.
- Powerful beings, sure. Divine necessary beings, no. The moment a being is contingent/restricted/caused, that being is not a necessary being, by definition.
Okay then. How about 2 God's being non-contingent, non-restricted and uncaused?
- A contingent being, a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed. That is, it needs an explanation for its existence & for the change that occurs within it. For instance, a being unable to create life is restricted, thus requires an explanation for that restriction -exterior explanation, which makes it a non-necessary being, i.e. a contingent being.
Are you telling me God is not restricted is what you meant by contingent? Would like a yes or no before I make claims.
omar 2345 said: That part wasn't the problem I have. Why can't God live off our souls and then when he has used them simply put that soul into a baby in order to revitalise it?Yassine said: Whatever that god is, it's simply not a necessary being.
Where in Islamic book does it state God requires to be "simply not a necessary being"?
I would like to have had more to say but the question I gave earlier about contingent being restrictive would help me understand your position,
- Which is why that requires an explanation, something can not come from nothing without an explanation.
Do you concede this is begging the question or maybe I am wrong? You have asserted your conclusion to be true because God exists not because you are capable of giving an example of how Creatio Ex Nihilo can occur. Am I correct?
- Already done. Refer to previous posts.
I'll repeat what I said before and want to expect a different answer: So you are incapable of translating the words or finding a site which you agrees with you to cite here? I find this rather annoying when you put in the effort to find "SEVEN" renown translations even though you sent me the arabic version not the one that is translated. Where was the translated version can you cite a source?
- "=/=" means 'distinct' *not* 'equal'.
Are you saying God is a necessary being and not contingent?
No, have you actually read ANYTHING I said you'd know it's actually the opposite.
Understand now.
- God. Refer to OP.
Do you mind finding it for me? I don't want to find something you would not like or you can simply state your point again.
- I suspect nothing does.
Are you incapable of defending your viewpoint? You say
Because it strictly contradicts it.
Without explaining it.
- I'll repeat again, God = necessary being =/= contingent being.
Understood.
- Seriously, are you like dumb or something? Turn on the translations:MUHSIN KHANAllah-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need).PICKTHALLAllah, the eternally Besought of all!YUSUF ALIAllah, the Eternal, Absolute;MUFTI TAQI USMANIAllah is Besought of all, needing none.ABUL ALA MAUDUDIAllah, Who is in need of none and of Whom all are in needSAHIH INTERNATIONALAllah, the Eternal Refuge.DR. MUSTAFA KHATTABAllah—the Sustainer ˹needed by all˺.
I am not seeing self-sufficient which is vital for you side. Which verse states this?
- How old are you?
So it is okay for you to use hypotheticals but not me? I keep using hypotheticals because it is a God debate and God's as far as I know don't have observable evidence or maybe you think it does. Do tell.
- LOL! I'm not getting mad, I'm LMAO this is too stupid.
Have a verse where it states God is self-sufficient or even non-contingent?
- No. I'm putting the Prophet (pbuh) authority higher than your stupid source, as are the theologians. Narrated Ibn Abbas, "They said, 'what is Samad?' he (pbuh) said, it is He on whom all is dependent" [Maftih al-Ghayb].
You gave me this very source:
You called my source st*pid even though I used the same source as you.
1) Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One,2) Allah, the Eternal Refuge.3) He neither begets nor is born,4) Nor is there to Him any equivalent."
So basically you have called your own source stupid. Would like a response.
- HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, this is just precious. Are you an ostrich? You like sticking your head in the sand pretending things don't exist...
Do you even have a point? Lol would do just fine instead of spending characters on multiples HA's. I know what exists I just think what you claim doesn't exist and you have resorted to not even explaining your side.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Firstly, i like your responses. But watch out for this guy... he thinks he's better than you not only off his religion but he thinks he's some kind of intellectually superior human bc he's read a fake book 100 times. When a religion needs me to bow down to an apologist like him... i say, "meet me irl and i'll make you feel insignificant real fast." Anyways... keep going, you're asking good questions.Do you even have a point? Lol would do just fine instead of spending characters on multiples HA's. I know what exists I just think what you claim doesn't exist and you have resorted to not even explaining your side.
-->
@Yassine
- A contingent being, a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed. That is, it needs an explanation for its existence & for the change that occurs within it. For instance, a being unable to create life is restricted, thus requires an explanation for that restriction -exterior explanation, which makes it a non-necessary being, i.e. a contingent being.
A being that never existed until a camel trader invented it is contingent on the camel trader.
-->
@Outplayz
Yeah it is weird that he uses the word sufficient but can't find where it is in the Islamic holy book. My 2 Gods example should also be a good enough argument and forgot to mention which is why mentioned it later on my earlier post where does it say in the Islamic holy book that God is a non-contingent being.
-->
@Yassine
MUHSIN KHANAllah-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need).PICKTHALLAllah, the eternally Besought of all!YUSUF ALIAllah, the Eternal, Absolute;MUFTI TAQI USMANIAllah is Besought of all, needing none.ABUL ALA MAUDUDIAllah, Who is in need of none and of Whom all are in needSAHIH INTERNATIONALAllah, the Eternal Refuge.DR. MUSTAFA KHATTABAllah—the Sustainer ˹needed by all˺.
I did say I didn't see self sufficient what I actually meant can you point to the verse number as well?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Only a person that can speak Arabic can go to their god basically (the rest of us be damned). That's the reply you'll get all the time. You don't know how to speak Arabic, so your translation is flawed. Even if you find translations... you don't speak Arabic, so somehow you can't give an opinion. If god is that petty that his holy book relies on us to give over all our trust (and power) to another human... count me out. These people just have a messiah complex. They think they're chosen by god or something that's why they "see it clearly" and we should trust their apologetic translations over our own eyes.
-->
@Outplayz
Only a person that can speak Arabic can go to their god basically (the rest of us be damned). That's the reply you'll get all the time.
I don't see the point of making the forum post then. In hopes there is a person who knows Arabic but is not a Muslim? That number must be small and DA is a small community as well so I don't know what he is doing.
You don't know how to speak Arabic, so your translation is flawed.
I used a translation he agreed with and it stated nothing about God being non-contingent or self-sufficient.
They think they're chosen by god or something that's why they "see it clearly" and we should trust their apologetic translations over our own eyes.
I think people like him are like that because they were indoctrinated into Religion at an early age. I was too but my parents were lenient so I am not as interested like him or forced to do so. I read up and realise Religion is really st*pid. There is a saying for people like him. If you didn't use reason to get into Religion how am I supposed to get you out of Religion with reason? Must have butchered but I am sure the message got across.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I don't see the point of making the forum post then.
I'm just saying... that's what he'll resort to. That you aren't doing it right. Plus, i just realized i've triggered him... 1) i've called him out; 2) i gave him an impossible question he ran from and i'm sure won't answer bc he can't... so, he may stop talking to you bc you're talking to me... i hope not, if so sorry lol.
I used a translation he agreed with and it stated nothing about God being non-contingent or self-sufficient.
And therein you'll see the deception... it doesn't matter. You don't know how to speak Arabic or know Arabic history as well as he does so you're wrong. This has a saying too: "pulling the wool over your eyes."
I think people like him are like that because they were indoctrinated into Religion at an early age.
I don't know if this is true. I was grown around religion, although i wasn't indoctrinated or preached to, but everyone seemed to love it. I associated it with love and defended it for a bit bc of that... until an atheist pointed out all the flaws and i was like "oh... yeah this is BS." There are some philosophical things i've seen explain this... people like you and i. One i read about is Spiral Dynamics. But that favors spiritual people a little in the end so it may not be attractive, but it's worth checking out bc some things are pretty true... and i like the test sense it has a lot of research behind it.
I personally look at it like a bell curve... like an IQ bell curve but different since it's more spiritual intelligence rather intelligence. I look at atheists on one end, religious in the average, and people that can see multiple spiritual truths or ultimate platforms that are viable without bias and to our current understanding... i think you start getting towards the "genius" end. I fancy myself on that end, although remember it's not saying i'm smart... if anything i'm extra delusional lol. But i can clearly see spiritual platforms and rank them to the ones that are viable and actually seem to have evidence for. But, as you will also see... most of the "follower" type religions fall into the average. Just like IQ, there are a lot of them... which seems to correlate with reality. And similar to IQ... they will just never understand what a 140 IQ person see's if their IQ is 90. So, that's how i see it... i think it goes a little further than just indoctrination.