If No One Had Told You About Allah.... Would You Still Believe In Him?

philologos · 02-03-2011 02:26PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

My point is without humanity passing on what they believe to people who don't believe can religion/ deitys exist? As a non believer myself I find it hard to believe that an all powerful being needs human prayer to exist...? For if you all stopped praying to that God he would cease to exist,as no one would remember him...? And if that's the case would he have existed in the first place without invention?

This is an illogical question. God's existence doesn't depend on memory unless God is just an invented deity. If God does exist, I wholly believe that He would reveal Himself to us just as He did before the Bible. I presume Muslims feel the same about the Qur'an.

Your question is effectively the same thing as saying that gods are created in mans image. That's great, but it raises a lot of questions for you too.

Your question raises the question does God have subjective or objective existence. Most Christians and Muslims believe that God has objective existence therefore He would still nonetheless exist in the absence of belief or if everyone decided to become an atheist.

DrumSteve · 02-03-2011 03:34PM

Jakkass wrote: »

This is an illogical question. God's existence doesn't depend on memory unless God is just an invented deity. If God does exist, I wholly believe that He would reveal Himself to us just as He did before the Bible. I presume Muslims feel the same about the Qur'an.

Your question is effectively the same thing as saying that gods are created in mans image. That's great, but it raises a lot of questions for you too.

Your question raises the question does God have subjective or objective existence. Most Christians and Muslims believe that God has objective existence therefore He would still nonetheless exist in the absence of belief or if everyone decided to become an atheist.

Such as?

I believe that God was created by man not that other way around.

philologos · 02-03-2011 03:45PM

Exactly, and you're bringing this assumption in with you and are refusing to consider the possibility that God could well actually exist and that God could in turn reveal Himself to humanity as He had done before? This is why it is an illogical question. It's like asking someone do they still beat their wife? You are assuming that they have beaten their wife to begin with. (Petitio principii logical fallacy)

One of many questions I can ask:
How can we be convinced that God is the invention of man rather than having objective basis?

As a non believer myself I find it hard to believe that an all powerful being needs human prayer to exist...? For if you all stopped praying to that God he would cease to exist,as no one would remember him...? And if that's the case would he have existed in the first place without invention?

Nobody has said God needs prayer to exist, that's absurd. Therefore your argument is without basis. Existence isn't dependant on human memory.

DrumSteve · 02-03-2011 03:56PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Exactly, and you're bringing this assumption in with you and are refusing to consider the possibility that God could well actually exist and that God could in turn reveal Himself to humanity as He had done before? This is why it is an illogical question. It's like asking someone do they still beat their wife? You are assuming that they have beaten their wife to begin with. (Petitio principii logical fallacy)

One of many questions I can ask:
How can we be convinced that God is the invention of man rather than having objective basis?

Nobody has said God needs prayer to exist, that's absurd. Therefore your argument is without basis. Existence isn't dependant on human memory.

So what is existance dependent on...? An Assumption? You could believe he existed but based on what? If no one ever spoke about him or said anything to that effect would you believe in your specific version of God?

If you didn't pray to him or know he existed what would be the point of him?

My personal beliefs don't come into it either thats why I asked this question to people who believe in God not in the aethiest forum. But since you ask:

How can we be convinced that God is the invention of man rather than having objective basis?

Because I have never seen irrefutable proof that God exists. Anywhere. Other than being told by people my whole life that's he's up there and he's watching you... which is based on what?

irishconvert · 02-03-2011 04:56PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

So what is existance dependent on...? An Assumption? You could believe he existed but based on what? If no one ever spoke about him or said anything to that effect would you believe in your specific version of God?

If you didn't pray to him or know he existed what would be the point of him?

My personal beliefs don't come into it either thats why I asked this question to people who believe in God not in the aethiest forum. But since you ask:

How can we be convinced that God is the invention of man rather than having objective basis?

Because I have never seen irrefutable proof that God exists. Anywhere. Other than being told by people my whole life that's he's up there and he's watching you... which is based on what?

DrumSTeve, let me ask you, how much have you looked into the evidence the God exists? Have you read the Qur'an for example? Have you read other religious books such as the Bible or Torah? How do you come to your conclusion that God does not exist?

DrumSteve · 02-03-2011 05:32PM

irishconvert wrote: »

DrumSTeve, let me ask you, how much have you looked into the evidence the God exists? Have you read the Qur'an for example? Have you read other religious books such as the Bible or Torah? How do you come to your conclusion that God does not exist?

I have read a good part of the Bible, not so much the Torah or the Qu'ran.

I just do not see any proof of his existence anywhere. I look at those books as as some sort of a guide for people to live their lives to not as proof that a supernatural being exists.

irishconvert · 02-03-2011 05:38PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

I have read a good part of the Bible, not so much the Torah or the Qu'ran.

I just do not see any proof of his existence anywhere. I look at those books as as some sort of a guide for people to live their lives to not as proof that a supernatural being exists.

Do you believe there is Extraterrestrial life?

DrumSteve · 02-03-2011 05:53PM

irishconvert wrote: »

Do you believe there is Extraterrestrial life?

Can you subject the search for God to the same scientific rigours that would be applied to finding Extra-terrestrial life?

irishconvert · 02-03-2011 06:16PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

Can you subject the search for God to the same scientific rigours that would be applied to finding Extra-terrestrial life?

That is not an answer to my question

philologos · 02-03-2011 08:51PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

So what is existance dependent on...? An Assumption? You could believe he existed but based on what? If no one ever spoke about him or said anything to that effect would you believe in your specific version of God?

Existence is dependant on objective reality which may or may not be believed. If everybody outside of Australia believed that Australia didn't exist, it would none the less exist because it is objectively so. Following this logic in the reverse in respect to God produces the outcome that if God exists objectively as Christians and Muslims believe even if nobody believed that He existed He nonetheless would.

DrumSteve wrote: »

If you didn't pray to him or know he existed what would be the point of him?

I'm not the only person on the earth. In an example compatible with both Christianity and Islam, Abraham didn't know that God existed until He revealed Himself to him.

You are also making the mistake that God's existence must have a point for us. He's not an ATM. He isn't just something that we can just 'use'. He is the Lord of the universe in both Christianity and Islam, and He existed before we did. Indeed, He isn't there because he is required by us to be there.

DrumSteve wrote: »

My personal beliefs don't come into it either thats why I asked this question to people who believe in God not in the aethiest forum. But since you ask:

Your personal beliefs are slap bang in the middle of the question in the same way as if someone asks if you are still beating your wife they assume that you have beaten your wife on at least one occasion prior.

DrumSteve wrote: »

How can we be convinced that God is the invention of man rather than having objective basis?

Because I have never seen irrefutable proof that God exists. Anywhere. Other than being told by people my whole life that's he's up there and he's watching you... which is based on what?

This doesn't answer the question. It is dodging it. I wait in expectation.

Hobbes · 02-03-2011 09:19PM

Jakkass wrote: »

You are also making the mistake that God's existence must have a point for us.

Not many people seem to read the charter so I will explain it again. This forum is not for people to have to defend their faith from attacks. They can answer your questions, it might not be the answer you want (or even explain what you want) but that is where it ends.

The same goes the other way, while this isn't the forum that an Atheist is going to get a easy ride, at the end of the day they do not have to defend themselves. If you want to ask questions to an Atheist, use the respective forum.

So please everyone change the language in how you are asking the questions. (and please no follow ups on what I mentioned or 'he did it first').

There · 02-03-2011 10:29PM

I have read a good part of the Bible, not so much the Torah or the Qu'ran.

I just do not see any proof of his existence anywhere. I look at those books as as some sort of a guide for people to live their lives to not as proof that a supernatural being exists.

Until you read those books you cant really make that assumption in the second part of your statement.

virmilitaris · 03-03-2011 07:11AM

irishconvert wrote: »

DrumSTeve, let me ask you, how much have you looked into the evidence the God exists? Have you read the Qur'an for example? Have you read other religious books such as the Bible or Torah? How do you come to your conclusion that God does not exist?

I hope I'm not butting in here but I'd like to give my few cents here.

I've read the Bible and a lot of the Qur'an, in English if that makes a difference. I found absolutely nothing special about either except they seem to have a lot in common.

I don't see how either could be used for evidence of anything besides the fact that people could write about their culture in the past just as badly as they can write about it now.

Could you direct me towards a particular passage where you feel this evidence makes itself known ?

I've come to the conclusion that god probably doesn't exist because there isn't anything to suggest otherwise. I'd also like to append to this the fact that even if your god existed and there was proof of such I would not worship it especially because of what is written in the Bible and the Qur'an.

Perhaps you could explain to me why, if it were all true, I should worship your god ?

dj357 · 03-03-2011 07:58AM

I think, in regards to the OP, a better, probing question, would be: if, as mentioned, one ended up with a loss of memory and lost all knowledge of their God, in this case Allah, and this knowledge was not reacquired through exposure to peoples or doctrines of the faith, would it be necessary for God to reveal himself in another way (which DrumSteve is, if I'm not wrong, claiming has never actually happened, a claim I agree with) before that person would be able to know of that God once again, or would that person naturally come to the conclusion that specific God exists?

I think what he is trying to tease out is, is our belief in gods, and further, which specific god we believe in, tied overwhelmingly to the books and cultures we are exposed to? It's an important question. As other posters have said, God's existence is not dependent on prayer or even anyone knowing of him. A better question would be, is our knowledge of God dependent upon his existence...? It's worth pointing out that all of us have a great many pieces of knowledge on things that most certainly do not exist.

irishconvert · 03-03-2011 01:25PM

virmilitaris wrote: »

I hope I'm not butting in here but I'd like to give my few cents here.

I've read the Bible and a lot of the Qur'an, in English if that makes a difference. I found absolutely nothing special about either except they seem to have a lot in common.

I don't see how either could be used for evidence of anything besides the fact that people could write about their culture in the past just as badly as they can write about it now.

Could you direct me towards a particular passage where you feel this evidence makes itself known ?

I've come to the conclusion that god probably doesn't exist because there isn't anything to suggest otherwise. I'd also like to append to this the fact that even if your god existed and there was proof of such I would not worship it especially because of what is written in the Bible and the Qur'an.

Perhaps you could explain to me why, if it were all true, I should worship your god ?

From my point of view I always had this gut feeling is that there is a creator. I simply can't believe that everything in this world just came to be. As I learnt more about Islam and read the Qur'an it fit in to how I felt naturally. The Qur'an is not a book to be used to prove God exists, it is a book of guidance on how we should live our lives. It's like a manual for life from God. If your default opinion is that there could not be such thing as God, then I doubt reading the Qur'an is going to change that view.

dj357 · 03-03-2011 03:34PM

irishconvert wrote: »

I simply can't believe that everything in this world just came to be.

But you do know that nothing "just came to be" right...?

irishconvert wrote: »

The Qur'an is not a book to be used to prove God exists, it is a book of guidance on how we should live our lives.

How do lines such as those below help us to live our lives?

Don't bother warning the disbelievers. Allah has made it impossible for them to believe so that he can torture them forever after they die. 2:6-7

Allah has sickened the hearts of disbelievers and increased their disease. He is a spiritual anti-doctor. 2:10

If you try to compose a surah that is better than those in the Quran, and then fail, Allah will burn you forever if you in the fire that he has prepared for disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24

Allah will shed human blood while angels praise him in heaven. (The angels question why Allah has to kill people; Allah says they'd understand if they knew everything like he does.) 2:30

irishconvert · 03-03-2011 03:45PM

dj357 banned for breach of charter rule #1.

philologos · 03-03-2011 04:18PM

There wrote: »

Until you read those books you cant really make that assumption in the second part of your statement.

Indeed. Although I'd point out if you have read from Genesis - Deuteronomy you've read the Torah.

I don't think one can have an indepth opinion without reading the Bible in entirety or any other religious texts. I'd prefer not to criticise the Qur'an until I gain a good knowledge of it.

Mark Hamill · 03-03-2011 06:48PM

irishconvert wrote: »

From my point of view I always had this gut feeling is that there is a creator.
As I learnt more about Islam and read the Qur'an it fit in to how I felt naturally.

The problem with these, are that they are subjective. Some people feel the same way about other religious texts. What do you think is happening when people get the same feeling you get with the quran, but from other books? Are they to blame, are they just unlucky?

irishconvert wrote: »

I simply can't believe that everything in this world just came to be.

What do you mean by "just came to be"?

irishconvert wrote: »

The Qur'an is not a book to be used to prove God exists, it is a book of guidance on how we should live our lives. It's like a manual for life from God.

A lot of the rules of the quran come across as arbitrary (at least to people and places who dont have them and dont immediately suffer from them), so invariably, the confirmation of the existence of the authority behind the book is necessary to accept that you should follow the rules you dont understand.

irishconvert wrote: »

If your default opinion is that there could not be such thing as God, then I doubt reading the Qur'an is going to change that view.

My default opinion is that so far, no-one has convinced that any god exists. I'm open to offers though.

philologos · 03-03-2011 07:21PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The problem with these, are that they are subjective. Some people feel the same way about other religious texts. What do you think is happening when people get the same feeling you get with the quran, but from other books? Are they to blame, are they just unlucky?

If the Qur'an happens to be correct it is not subjective. A possibility that seems to be ignored by most atheists. If the Qur'an is true, irrespective of how many believe it it will continue to be true.*

* Not that I am arguing that Islam is true, but rather a demonstration that your logic is flawed due to some "no go" areas that you and the OP have set up.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What do you mean by "just came to be"?

What do you think it means? - That everything came to be of its own accord, that the universe caused itself. Seems absurd to me as well.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

A lot of the rules of the quran come across as arbitrary (at least to people and places who dont have them and dont immediately suffer from them), so invariably, the confirmation of the existence of the authority behind the book is necessary to accept that you should follow the rules you dont understand.

What is your experience of the Qur'an, just curious?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My default opinion is that so far, no-one has convinced that any god exists. I'm open to offers though.

Nobody has convinced you. True. I suspect the automatic raising of the goalposts though. I suspect there is something to do with a desire for the conclusion to be false also.

Mark Hamill · 03-03-2011 07:41PM

Jakkass wrote: »

If the Qur'an happens to be correct it is not subjective. A possibility that seems to be ignored by most atheists. If the Qur'an is true, irrespective of how many believe it it will continue to be true.*

* Not that I am arguing that Islam is true, but rather a demonstration that your logic is flawed due to some "no go" areas that you and the OP have set up.

I never said the quran was subjective, I said his feelings on the quran are subjective. Presumably you dont feel the same way about the quran that irishconvert does?

Jakkass wrote: »

What do you think it means? - That everything came to be of its own accord, that the universe caused itself. Seems absurd to me as well.

Seems absurd to me that everything that happens in the universe should be immediately understandable by any human. Why couldn't the universe have caused itself? Why does the universe need a cause?

Jakkass wrote: »

What is your experience of the Qur'an, just curious?

My girlfriend is a muslim.

Jakkass wrote: »

Nobody has convinced you. True. I suspect the automatic raising of the goalposts though. I suspect there is something to do with a desire for the conclusion to be false also.

My only desire is to know the truth about reality. What I think about that truth is largely irrelevant as to whether or not its true. Thus its always in my best interest to have as close-to-reality of an understanding of reality as possible.

philologos · 03-03-2011 07:53PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I never said the quran was subjective, I said his feelings on the quran are subjective. Presumably you dont feel the same way about the quran that irishconvert does?

I don't, but I feel that the argument is lacking on your part. I have much more in common with the Islamic understanding than with the atheistic one.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Seems absurd to me that everything that happens in the universe should be immediately understandable by any human. Why couldn't the universe have caused itself? Why does the universe need a cause?

Nobody said that everything should be immediately understandable. This doesn't mean that it is impossible that a Creator could have had a role in the Creation.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My girlfriend is a muslim.

This tells me nothing about your personal acquaintance with the Qur'an.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My only desire is to know the truth about reality. What I think about that truth is largely irrelevant as to whether or not its true. Thus its always in my best interest to have as close-to-reality of an understanding of reality as possible.

So is ours as theists. That's the reason why I gave thorough investigation into the subject of the possibility of the universe and us in it having a telos.

Mark Hamill · 03-03-2011 11:30PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't, but I feel that the argument is lacking on your part. I have much more in common with the Islamic understanding than with the atheistic one.

How is it lacking? How irishconvert feels about the quran is as subjective as how you feel about it, you both have your subjective view points on it. My point is what it means for irishconvert is what does your differing subjective view of the quran mean to his. Does it make him consider that subjective views are just that, subjective, and have no baring the reality of the book?
(NB: this is not an argument against the veracity of the quran at all, its an argument against using a subjective viewpoint of the book as evidence for its veracity. If everyone in the world hated the quran and thought it poorly written, it would not count against its veracity one bit, so why does irishconvert's appreciation of it count in its favour)

Jakkass wrote: »

Nobody said that everything should be immediately understandable.

But that was you argument. You find absurdity in a theory because it doesn't offer enough understanding of the beginning of the universe (either because you dont understand it or because the theory isn't accurate) therefore it is wrong.

Jakkass wrote: »

This tells me nothing about your personal acquaintance with the Qur'an.

I haven't read it, as, imo, it doesn't lend itself to particularly clear reading. I am aware of its underlying rules on continuation of the religion and relationships with non muslims. I have tried to understand other parts, on this forum, however honest assessment is hard to achieve.

craggles · 03-03-2011 11:32PM

irishconvert wrote: »

That is not an answer to my question

Yes it was!

philologos · 03-03-2011 11:40PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How is it lacking? How irishconvert feels about the quran is as subjective as how you feel about it, you both have your subjective view points on it. My point is what it means for irishconvert is what does your differing subjective view of the quran mean to his. Does it make him consider that subjective views are just that, subjective, and have no baring the reality of the book?
(NB: this is not an argument against the veracity of the quran at all, its an argument against using a subjective viewpoint of the book as evidence for its veracity. If everyone in the world hated the quran and thought it poorly written, it would not count against its veracity one bit, so why does irishconvert's appreciation of it count in its favour)

OK I'll leave this here as I've probably misread your previous posts.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But that was you argument. You find absurdity in a theory because it doesn't offer enough understanding of the beginning of the universe (either because you dont understand it or because the theory isn't accurate) therefore it is wrong.

It wasn't my argument. I tend to go with what seems more likely to me when I am thinking about how I regard the universe. It seems more likely that the universe came into being through creation rather than forming of its own accord, or from itself. It seems rational to me to base my worldview on what makes the most sense. There may well be much that I don't understand, but generally people understand the world based on what seems most sensible.

Edit: What theory do I find absurd? Just curious?

virmilitaris · 04-03-2011 04:55AM

irishconvert wrote: »

From my point of view I always had this gut feeling is that there is a creator. I simply can't believe that everything in this world just came to be. As I learnt more about Islam and read the Qur'an it fit in to how I felt naturally. The Qur'an is not a book to be used to prove God exists, it is a book of guidance on how we should live our lives. It's like a manual for life from God. If your default opinion is that there could not be such thing as God, then I doubt reading the Qur'an is going to change that view.

I'm sorry but I don't think you read my post fully. My default position is that I don't know if there's a god or gods. There could be a god or several gods, there could be aliens, there could be any number of other disproven entities but until I am presented with evidence for their existence I must assume that they probably don't exist.

But I went on to say that if I could indeed be convinced of such a deities existence could you explain why I should worship it? Let's assume that I believe it exists for this question.

virmilitaris · 04-03-2011 05:04AM

Jakkass wrote: »

OK I'll leave this here as I've probably misread your previous posts.

It wasn't my argument. I tend to go with what seems more likely to me when I am thinking about how I regard the universe. It seems more likely that the universe came into being through creation rather than forming of its own accord, or from itself. It seems rational to me to base my worldview on what makes the most sense. There may well be much that I don't understand, but generally people understand the world based on what seems most sensible.

Edit: What theory do I find absurd? Just curious?

Where did god come from ?

philologos · 04-03-2011 09:37AM

virmilitaris wrote: »

Where did god come from ?

There is a key difference between God and the universe. God is said to have existed infinitely. The universe is said to have existed 13.7 billion years ago. It is not possible to exist for a finite length of time without a cause. This is contingent being (can be or not be) as opposed to necessary being (the prerequisite for all things).

I'm basing this a good deal on Aquinas' philosophy. Indeed, also on James Sadowsky's argument against an infinite regress. If creation was an infinite regress we would still be in creation. The earth wouldn't be said to be created because it would be in a sense in an infinite loop. If you're a into software development / computer science it might be like this

while (3 < 4) {
do this;
}

It won't move past the "do this;" block of the code until the condition is satisfied. Namely in our case that the earth is created.

Philosophy of religion is one of my favourite areas of philosophy.

Mark Hamill · 04-03-2011 12:29PM

Jakkass wrote: »

It wasn't my argument. I tend to go with what seems more likely to me when I am thinking about how I regard the universe. It seems more likely that the universe came into being through creation rather than forming of its own accord, or from itself. It seems rational to me to base my worldview on what makes the most sense. There may well be much that I don't understand, but generally people understand the world based on what seems most sensible.

The problem with that is that what makes sense to one person doesn't make sense to another. Its the problem I've been detailing all along, subjectivity. It makes sense to you that the christian god was involved (or christian understanding of god) in creation, it makes sense to irishconvert that the mulsim god (or muslim understanding of god) was involved. Ultimately, what makes sense to either of you, or to any one else, is moot. An idea making sense to some specific person doesn't necessarily make it any more or less likely to be true.

Jakkass wrote: »

Edit: What theory do I find absurd? Just curious?

The big bang theory as it is considered scientifically, ie without any need for god's intervention.

philologos · 04-03-2011 12:35PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The problem with that is that what makes sense to one person doesn't make sense to another. Its the problem I've been detailing all along, subjectivity. It makes sense to you that the christian god was involved (or christian understanding of god) in creation, it makes sense to irishconvert that the mulsim god (or muslim understanding of god) was involved. Ultimately, what makes sense to either of you, or to any one else, is moot. An idea making sense to some specific person doesn't necessarily make it any more or less likely to be true.

It appears the only difficulty here is:
1) In earnest it doesn't make sense to you.
2) Due to assumptions, pre-conceived notions or whatever else it isn't desirable for you to believe that there was indeed a Creator.

I'm thinking the second.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The big bang theory as it is considered scientifically, ie without any need for god's intervention.

Where does it make a judgement on whether or not it is needed. I think this is your assumption and nobody elses. It seems to be agnostic on the issue (God may have, or God may have not). Atheism slipping into your interpretation of the science again Mark? (Why should I be surprised?)

You're welcome to that opinion, but this is all that it is. Can you find any statement in peer-reviewed papers on this which clearly state that God is not needed? Or are they silent. If they are the latter you're being fundamentally dishonest.

If No One Had Told You About Allah.... Would You Still Believe In Him?

Comments