Ya I'm glad for the same reasons. I had mixed feelings coming in. On the one hand I want an actual convo, but on the other hand I know how emotional or out of hand religious debates/convos can get. But as long as nobody takes offense, and we don't bash one another I think it should be ok right?
Before I start officially replying, I would like to mention there's this guy named Hamza Tzortzis who has many nice debates with atheists, and imo breaks it down pretty logically why he first believes there must be a God, then why Islam is the truth. It's easy to find on youtube "hamza tzortzis debates." I'm mentioning him because he's well read and debates with atheist professors (some of which aren't actually atheist, but are really agnostic).I even got to meet him first hand a couple of months ago which was pretty sweet
Originally Posted by wiki
saying an all powerful entity did something out of boredom is giving this entity human characteristics. God doesn't do things out of boredom. An all knowing all seeing God wouldn't be doing things out of boredom, especially if He already knows the outcome of what He's going to do, since He is "all knowing and all seeing.""Came from monkeys" is the only joke there, no one seriously ever even proposed it, its a straw man of the most basic level. However saying the rational alternative is that a everlasting all powerful entity just wished us into existence one day out of boredom is equally stupid if you describe it in such colorless language.
Really it was a mistake for me to even say came from monkeys. I studied evolution (obviously) in high school, and I even took an evolution class in college. I know the theory doesn't involved us coming directly from monkeys, but it does have us coming from animals, which is really my point. a genetic aberration in some animal gave it better qualities than the original which made it more survivable and more appealing to the opposite sex. This in turn through time makes the genetic aberration the new norm and the old original genes die out because it's less survivable and less appealing to the opposite sex. And that's mainly how evolution occurs right? Through genetic mutations. It's not that I don't believe in evolution, I actually do. I just don't believe I came from an animal and thus my religion, my good and bad luck, and my purpose is just to live and die.
The proof is we are here. It's either There was a creator for the universe, or the universe always existed. But science has mapped out how old the universe is. 13.77 billion years. Which means obviously it didn't always exist. So how did the universe come into existence? The big bang? Who created the particles necessary for the big bang. And honestly the idea that an explosion leads to creation of life is impossible to imagine. no life came from the nukes and bombs we've created, just death.I'd take the incomplete theory of evolution over absolutely zero proof a perfect (another widely underestimated adjective) God created us out of his mind into these inarguably imperfect things we are now.
And where did this density come from? It was just there? You're reply might be what about God? Is God just there? My reply to that would be God isn't part of creation, and is not held down by the laws of his own creation. Where is there for God? It's no where we can see, because it's no where inside his own creation.Originally Posted by wiki
So my helping a stranger on the road is nullified, because I'm doing it because God commanded me in the Quran to do good? I want to go to heaven, and in order to do that I must do good deeds, so I "want to" do the good deeds. Everyone has a reason why they do something good or bad. Some people do good, because they hope that some good will be done for them in return later. Is their good deed then nullified too? You said yourself earlier that there is no morality, or rather morality is subject to change based on societies. If that's the case there is no good, and there is no bad. So why do good anyways?Yep. Thats it exactly. To do good things because you believe you will be rewarded in my opinion nullifies the good in the deed, because you're not doing it because you want to - you're doing it for the reward you expect.
From dust to dust.
I'm assuming your knowledge of God is based on what you've heard and or read about. And from what you've written it appears to mostly be from the Christian ideology. I'm not Christian so I'm not held back by that. Muslims don't call God our father in heaven or whatever. That's giving God human characteristics. In Islam the only Characteristics for God we know are those that he gives Himself in the Quran.Also I think that thinking an omnipotent father figure is specially watching you and all you do with the hopes that he can gift you with the cure (everlasting life in paradise) to the most basic fear of every living thing (death) is the most narcissistic thing I can imagine.
You can't argue though that believing in diety that watches your every action, and will punish you for your bad deeds, is a good way of instilling morals in a people, and improving that society. Otherwise your morals are only good when you might get in trouble with the law for doing bad. Once there's no chance of you getting caught then you're likely to do whatever you want without fear of consequence. But if you believe God is watching you and He sees ALL that you do at all times, then that would prevent you from doing bad whether mankind is watching you or not.
Btw, Muslims don't fear death. Part of our faith is the knowledge that we are here on this earth as travelers. Just passing through in other words. The greater and better life is in paradise and so why would you fear something (death) that will take you to paradise? I don't fear death, I fear living in sin, and then going to hell eternally. The most you'll live in this world is 120 years, but most people live about 60 or 70. And if you talk to someone who is 60 or 70 they feel as though their life flew by, because time is relative right? So what's 60 or 70 years divided by infinity? It can't be computed. So instead of living for this short life, where you'll never EVER be satisfied (look at the richest people in the world, and the celebrities, and the people who appear to have everything), isn't it better to live for the next life where you're in eternal bliss?
Don't say that a scientific theory is a "guess", because there are no if, ands, or buts about it - you're flat out wrong on every conceivable level, and to claim otherwise is just a display of ignorance about not only science, but the English language. Furthermore it completely makes anything you say after, completely irrelevant as it would be based on that incorrect understanding of the word "theory" and its multiple and varied definitions.Fine A scientific theory is a fact that can be changed right? Sorry man, no other way to look at it. A theory is a highly rigorous, reliable, and comprehensive educated guess. You're right though, it's more than a guess, but it's less than a fact. Facts don't change right?Originally Posted by wiki
I think I can. Theories are "guesses" that people "assume" to be true. And a lot of times they are partially true at least. an incomplete tool. A hammer that hammers in "most" nails, is still useful right?This is very hypocritical. If its based on "guesses" as you believe they are, then there's no chance they can be proven true, thus making them all false, and therefore useless as "a tool to help explain the world around us and benefit mankind". Even if you specify and say you're only talking about biology per say and has nothing to do with say... physics, the same scientific method is used and if you're saying the method itself is flawed because its based on guesses, you discount everything that uses it. You can't have it both ways.
If you don't think it's wrong, then that's a problem steal. Of course it's wrong to kill innocents. If it was a war, and two armies were killing each other then whether the war is right or wrong is subject to debate. But killing innocent civilians is wrong no matter what lens you look through.Was it wrong? I don't know. Philosophically, I think its irrelevant. [insert useless stream of consciousness]I think the concept of "murder" is quite an odd thing. We murder our food every day and no one bats a eyelash. We murder each other and people go apeshit. What makes you any better than the pig that was slaughtered in the name of your ham sandwich? Or the ants you accidentally viciously murdered walking to work? See how this becomes complicated quickly? To have the luxury of believing one's self the flawless pinnacle of life is something I envy.[/end useless stream of consciousness] People die. Whether we frown upon the way they died or pity them doesn't make them any less dead. We can use whatever tactics we want to gain the acceptance of the majority and thus the clearing of the collective conscience. Warfare history (and thus public opinion) being written by the victor is a component, but that in and of itself makes morality a joke, because we are ascribing morality based on murdering BETTER than someone else.
We are not animals steal. Killing our food to eat isn't wrong. If we were killing it for pleasure then yes it would be (according to Islam at least). If we're all animals steal then yes we are no better than pigs or ants. But we're not.
In terms of who was right or wrong in history in terms of war. I would say most wars are just wrong period. Who's in control of the armies and the people getting slaughtered, a select few. And they send their people to kill other people for political or economical reasons. Not out of virtue. It's not about who won and thus decides who was right and who was wrong. God was watching all of them and they will all have to account for everything they did.
Everyone is rewarded in one way or another for every good thing they do, and everyone is punished in one way or another for every bad thing they do. some of it is in this life and some in the next life. A punishment in this life is better than one in the next. If you believe in God then you don't believe in luck, but you believe in destiny. Steal how do you know that natural disasters and accidents isn't a form of punishment for something you did? In Islam as Muslims we believe that if something bad happens in this life and he's patient with it then it's an expiation of his sins.My problem with absolute morality is a never ending stream. If something is absolutely right and others are absolutely wrong... prove the punishment. Prove that the punishment is actually a punishment and not a subversive desire of the offender. Prove that absolutely the just are always rewarded and the wicked are always punished. Why does God not do this during the time period we call "living", why wait until no one can witness the results of actions. Are there any circumstances where something that in a world of absolutely right and absolutely wrong can be found ambiguous. (the original question) If there are such circumstances then absolute right and wrong are no more.
This life is a test, to see who chooses to do and be good, and who chooses to do and be evil. We will see the results of our actions in the next life when we're resurrected. There are even some actions you see now in this life Steal. Sexually transmitted diseases is a clear example. Earthquakes makes people fear, and causes many to repent. What do people do in a calamity where nobody can help them? They yell out to God. "oh God oh God oh God oh God!" They don't say oh david or oh michael or oh adam. They say oh God cause they know deep down that nobody can help them except God the creator.
God can prevent evil.I leave you with this. Epicurus' trilemma
if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?
Evil is prevented all the time, but this life is a testing ground like I said earlier. If all evil was prevented then this place wouldn't be a test.
There's no such thing as pure evil anyways. Can you give me an example of pure evil? For a kid who has to get injected by a giant needle, what his parent is forcing on him is evil. But in reality this little bit of pain/evil prevents him from suffering through more pain/evil in the future.
A lot of the evil is created by man himself. So you want God to prevent this person from committing sin before he commits it? So you want God to take away your free will?
anyways good convo. Took too long to reply to though lol. I'd really suggest listening to some of Hamza Tzortzis debates with atheists. Here's one to start with: http://youtu.be/tifY9hk2_zQ