Do You Believe In God?

[TheDarkGreninja]

I don't know Quranic Arabic and, despite the whole tajwid thing, history is not on the side of those that assume languages are static and do not change with time or perhaps take on different interpretations or psychological implications. I could do it in English but apparently that is not the done thing, and having seen what can happen in translation in all aspects then that is not an unreasonable position to hold as an hard line for a final call. Speaking of different interpretations there are quite a few of them for Islam and with it the Quran, it might be others left the true path and it was Sufism all along but that is always a fun debate to have.

This guy seems to know it though, or at least he does things in English and Arabic, so I will go with linking him up for now
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9JU55HpvRvCSb1TO2w_eDA/videos








Infallible source? Absolutely not, though I would hold nothing is. Is he perhaps a bit quick to dismiss things in other videos? Having not grown up in or observed intensely I am not inclined to say but again perhaps. None of that however makes me inclined to not at least consider what is put forth there.

Yeah, theyre all misinterpretations of words.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I don't know Quranic Arabic and, despite the whole tajwid thing, history is not on the side of those that assume languages are static and do not change with time or perhaps take on different interpretations or psychological implications. I could do it in English but apparently that is not the done thing, and having seen what can happen in translation in all aspects then that is not an unreasonable position to hold as an hard line for a final call. Speaking of different interpretations there are quite a few of them for Islam and with it the Quran, it might be others left the true path and it was Sufism all along but that is always a fun debate to have.

This guy seems to know it though, or at least he does things in English and Arabic, so I will go with linking him up for now
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9JU55HpvRvCSb1TO2w_eDA/videos








Infallible source? Absolutely not, though I would hold nothing is. Is he perhaps a bit quick to dismiss things in other videos? Having not grown up in or observed intensely I am not inclined to say but again perhaps. None of that however makes me inclined to not at least consider what is put forth there.

For the last one:http://www.speed-light.info/miracles_of_quran/Quran_18.86_sun_setting_muddy_spring_murky_water.htm
He makes a little too many assumptions for me to consider his viewpoint viable. Did you just take videos from no where?
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBalex.html on the alexander romance.

 

[invaderyoyo]

Well Who put the system at work? You think natural selection began by itself. Dont be a fool. Nothing Comes by itself

Except for God?

 

[FAST6191]

Well Who put the system at work? You think natural selection began by itself. Dont be a fool. Nothing Comes by itself

What you are describing is a concept called god of the gaps, we discussed it at various other points in this thread. The idea being that upon something once ascribed a divine origin . On top of that even if some programmer wrote the universe that led to it why would it be whatever you ascribe to that is the path to them -- there are infinite gods and philosophies after all.

Yeah, theyre all misinterpretations of words.

The guy there would claim much of he was doing was correcting misinterpretations, wilful or otherwise (the refutation of the Dr Zakir guy having that at several occasions). Pending further refutations it seems we are at an impasse then.
Equally that is fairly quick to have seen all of them, though not impossible. Alternatively there might have been some fundamental flaw at points there which sunk his arguments entirely if he built his house of cards on a weak foundation; I am always up for expedience in sorting a debate.
At this point I may not understand it and it could well be a subtle thing, however if I could have it for the future or someone else that might know more can come along and explain further then that would be nice.

Edit. Missed the second reply as it happened after I clicked on this. Will come back later.

 

[evandixon]

Except for God?

The original quote should be rephrased "nothing finite comes by itself". God is infinite, having no beginning or end. As finite creatures, it's hard for us to understand this.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

What you are describing is a concept called god of the gaps, we discussed it at various other points in this thread. The idea being that upon something once ascribed a divine origin . On top of that even if some programmer wrote the universe that led to it why would it be whatever you ascribe to that is the path to them -- there are infinite gods and philosophies after all.


The guy there would claim much of he was doing was correcting misinterpretations, wilful or otherwise (the refutation of the Dr Zakir guy having that at several occasions). Pending further refutations it seems we are at an impasse then.
Equally that is fairly quick to have seen all of them, though not impossible. Alternatively there might have been some fundamental flaw at points there which sunk his arguments entirely if he built his house of cards on a weak foundation; I am always up for expedience in sorting a debate.
At this point I may not understand it and it could well be a subtle thing, however if I could have it for the future or someone else that might know more can come along and explain further then that would be nice.

It was because i had seen said arguments before.

 

[RevPokemon]

Can I just say (although I will get flak from atheists and theists) that the only logical belief system is agnosticism as it is the only one that accounts for the fact that we will never be able to know for 100% sure if there is a God or not? Sure I have seen arguments regarding the idea (Mostly Atheism vs Abrahamic religions) but even still they are mostly theoretical ideas about concepts regarding religion and God/ess/s/es that hold (in my opinion) little value because we can not be sure.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

Can I just say (although I will get flak from atheists and theists) that the only logical belief system is agnosticism as it is the only one that accounts for the fact that we will never be able to know for 100% sure if there is a God or not? Sure I have seen arguments regarding the idea (Mostly Atheism vs Abrahamic religions) but even still they are mostly theoretical ideas about concepts regarding religion and God/ess/s/es that hold (in my opinion) little value because we can not be sure.

I'd much rather be theistic.

 

[FAST6191]

As much as I enjoy preloaded list of debates vs preloaded list of refutations (we see it in things 10 questions for your biology teacher and the counters there) I will have to say what I do know of those things linked (mainly Alexander as it is a popular thing in myth and legend which I have read, even in original forms in cases) mixes well with some clear points, and decent historical analysis of psychology and empire building, in those videos. That guy in the videos is a random as far as I am aware, not that it would have made much difference if he was a leading ex imam, mullah or something, however I had also seen his arguments before and that was just a nice and easy to digest format. I had not seen any refutations of him or those at the time, and he seemed to be respected well enough among those which might be more capable of refuting him than I. This goes double if I would be supposed to consider the Quran to be the all time guide to life and Mohammed as the most righteous dude in history and an example to look up to in all things at all points in time.
I do however know the best lies are those with elements of truth and mixing what people know with a then unknown is a very good method for getting people of all stripes to believe things. To that end I am back to asking for refutations of them that I might not so that at least one day I might be able to fully grasp the meaning. Not ideal but a method of teaching which works.

On the logic of agnosticism then I might argue that, with all the historical precedent set by religions, if agnosticism is to be the mid line between wholesale rejection and notions that those hundreds of years ago with a lot to gain might have at least been onto something that it is still a somewhat absurd idea.

Continuing my wall of youtube

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

At this point the scientific validity of the Quran compared to the Bible is immense. So comparing all religions against atheism is in itself absurd. A pretty interesting mistake in the bible is sentence "let there be light". The universe wouldn't have had much light in its early days as it was opaque due to ionization. Only after the dark ages ended did we start seeing the first stars. The quran says the world was born in a haze-like smoke with no light.
And He [it is who] applied His design to the skies, which were [yet but] smoke Noble Quran 41:11 (Asad)
If someone tries to tell me that the quran isnt valid becuase these comments are "lucky guesses" then you'd be insane as these views were against the norms of arab society back then.
I digress. I want to get back on topic of god rather than go into religous ideas (please dont use the bible to show god is immoral. just please.)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

As much as I enjoy preloaded list of debates vs preloaded list of refutations (we see it in things 10 questions for your biology teacher and the counters there) I will have to say what I do know of those things linked (mainly Alexander as it is a popular thing in myth and legend which I have read, even in original forms in cases) mixes well with some clear points, and decent historical analysis of psychology and empire building, in those videos. That guy in the videos is a random as far as I am aware, not that it would have made much difference if he was a leading ex imam, mullah or something, however I had also seen his arguments before and that was just a nice and easy to digest format. I had not seen any refutations of him or those at the time, and he seemed to be respected well enough among those which might be more capable of refuting him than I. This goes double if I would be supposed to consider the Quran to be the all time guide to life and Mohammed as the most righteous dude in history and an example to look up to in all things at all points in time.
I do however know the best lies are those with elements of truth and mixing what people know with a then unknown is a very good method for getting people of all stripes to believe things. To that end I am back to asking for refutations of them that I might not so that at least one day I might be able to fully grasp the meaning. Not ideal but a method of teaching which works.

On the logic of agnosticism then I might argue that, with all the historical precedent set by religions, if agnosticism is to be the mid line between wholesale rejection and notions that those hundreds of years ago with a lot to gain might have at least been onto something that it is still a somewhat absurd idea.

Continuing my wall of youtube

I enjoy having my religion scrutinised. They usually act like I haven't scrutinised my religion myself. I pretty much argue with myself and counter argue. IMO its a good idea to question and scrutinise everything since it develops a higher understanding overall. I should say i agree with both videos.

 

[invaderyoyo]

The original quote should be rephrased "nothing finite comes by itself". God is infinite, having no beginning or end. As finite creatures, it's hard for us to understand this.

Our lives are finite, but the stuff we're made of isn't gonna dissappear.

I know I mentioned this before, but by saying that God created the universe you aren't answering anything, just adding another layer.

The real question is why does anything exist? If you say God did it, you're missing the point. Also time is relative to gravity. Maybe there isn't a beginning.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

Our lives are finite, but the stuff we're made of isn't gonna dissappear.

I know I mentioned this before, but by saying that God created the universe you aren't answering anything, just adding another layer.

The real question is why does anything exist? If you say God did it, you're missing the point. Also time is relative to gravity. Maybe there isn't a beginning.

We're just going into a bunch of maybes. There has to be a beginning for there to be an end (something that will inevitably happen.)

 

[invaderyoyo]

We're just going into a bunch of maybes. There has to be a beginning for there to be an end (something that will inevitably happen.)

What I'm saying is that we don't know yet. I'm not assuming that there was a beginning and that there will be an end. We don't know.

Also, how fast time passes for an object is determined by the gravity it's experiencing. The greater the gravity, the slower time passes for an object. This is proven. We have to adjust the atomic clocks in GPS satellites every so often because of this. GPS satellites are experiencing less gravity than things on Earth's surface.

At a black hole time stops for an object. That's why I'm saying there might not be a beginning or end. Time is relative.

On top of this, moving faster also makes time slow down...

 

[Lacius]

We're just going into a bunch of maybes. There has to be a beginning for there to be an end (something that will inevitably happen.)

There's no reason to think the universe requires a cause, and if the universe did have a cause, there is no reason to think that cause was a god. This is regardless of whether or not the universe had a beginning.

In addition, there are plenty of scientific inaccuracies in the Quran. Even if we agreed there were no scientific inaccuracies in the Quran, that wouldn't be any reason to think a god exists.

 

[evandixon]

Maybe there isn't a beginning.

Entropy and the big bang theory both make it seem likely that there was a beginning.

 

[invaderyoyo]

Entropy and the big bang theory both make it seem likely that there was a beginning.

That explains how the universe got the way it is. Not necessarily the beginning of existence if there was one.

 

[Lacius]

Entropy and the big bang theory both make it seem likely that there was a beginning.

We don't know if the universe had a beginning. What you might call a likely beginning could very well have been a change in state.

If the universe did have a beginning, there is no reason to think the beginning requires a cause. We are, after all, talking about the beginning of what we would call causality. If the universe had a cause, there is no reason to think that cause was a god.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

There's no reason to think the universe requires a cause, and if the universe did have a cause, there is no reason to think that cause was a god. This is regardless of whether or not the universe had a beginning.

In addition, there are plenty of scientific inaccuracies in the Quran. Even if we agreed there were no scientific inaccuracies in the Quran, that wouldn't be any reason to think a god exists.

Yeah, lets just use a site that doesnt look at the quran objectively and uses misinterpretations. this mustve been your thought process "time to search Quran inaccuracies on google and click the first link!"
It's logical to think things require a cause, you cant just have a cake exist. That is a reason to think god exists as it proves my point that a god mustve written this as predicting this much is improbable.

 

[Lacius]

Yeah, lets just use a site that doesnt look at the quran objectively and uses misinterpretations. this mustve been your thought process "time to search Quran inaccuracies on google and click the first link!"

I've thoroughly discussed numerous claims on that website with other people, and most of them hold up. This isn't the first time I've had to refer to it. You also seem to have ignored my point on how it's irrelevant whether or not the Quran gets some or all of the science correct. That would be no reason to believe anything else in the book is true.

It's logical to think things require a cause, you cant just have a cake exist. That is a reason to think god exists as it proves my point that a god mustve written this as predicting this much is improbable.

We know a cake requires a cause because we know from our understanding of cake and all of our previous examples of cake that cake is something that is created. There is no reason to think the universe requires a cause, and if there was a cause, there is no reason to think that cause was a god.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

I've thoroughly discussed numerous claims on that website with other people, and most of them hold up. This isn't the first time I've had to refer to it. You also seem to have ignored my point on how it's irrelevant whether or not the Quran gets some or all of the science correct. That would be no reason to believe anything else in the book is true.


We know a cake requires a cause because we know from our understanding of cake and all of our previous examples of cake that cake is something that is created. There is no reason to think the universe requires a cause, and if there was a cause, there is no reason to think that cause was a god.

"That is a reason to think god exists as it proves my point that a god mustve written this as predicting this much is improbable." i didnt ignore your point. We know that everything requires a cause, show me one example of something in nature that wasnt caused to be? Also give me another example of something that could've caused the universe other than an intelligent designer.
You've thoroughly discussed with who? Other biased people? yeah. None of them hold up. I could go on a spiel about how you'd have to discuss this with someone who actually understands the arabic language of the time as well as me just debunking each comment except i have a life.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I've thoroughly discussed numerous claims on that website with other people, and most of them hold up. This isn't the first time I've had to refer to it. You also seem to have ignored my point on how it's irrelevant whether or not the Quran gets some or all of the science correct. That would be no reason to believe anything else in the book is true.


We know a cake requires a cause because we know from our understanding of cake and all of our previous examples of cake that cake is something that is created. There is no reason to think the universe requires a cause, and if there was a cause, there is no reason to think that cause was a god.

A famous mistranslation of where the mans sperm comes from. It was mistranslated to mean backbone when it could easily mean crotch also (loins to be more specific.)

 

[7iven8Nine]

I do, but I believe it a little differently so I don't go with the different denominations. What I have come to believe is that The Bible itself is a giant metaphor, in a way such to say, it's okay to break rules if needed and that nothing is absolute. No one has to be anything but themselves in order to enjoy heaven/eternal life. 1 Peter 2:24 States the Jesus died for our sins in order for us to live righteously, which to me says, He died for all sins past, present, and future. So, I live my life just doing the best I can. I also personally believe if you're doing what is good to you, then you're okay and will make it to heaven. It wouldn't make much sense to have most of the world's non-christian population go straight to hell. Heaven would be pretty empty. I can explain further if needed.