Philosophy

**dna2playboy** · 03-03-2013, 02:03 AM

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 StealDragon

Oh yay a real conversation, its nice to be able to write a post that will be more than four lines long. Lets GOOOOOO!!! ^____________^

You could call me an atheist although I said that nowhere in my post and didn't do so quite specifically. Most of mankind believed the earth was flat, doesnt make it true, Alot of people believing something incorrect doesn't make it any less incorrect, although I'd say that I wouldn't call believing in a god "incorrect" I'd describe it as "illogical". Because God by defintion is an illogical concept. People throw the word omnipotent around and don't really think how complex of a term it is, so when you call someone "all-powerful" I don't think you grasp how insane of a concept that is.

To me not believing in a God is what's illogical. Where there's creation there must be a creator. If we were to go to mars and find pieces of civilization (buildings, tools) the only logical assessment would be somebody had to make it:

Originally Posted by wiki

In the book: The Truth: God or evolution? Marshall and Sandra Hall describe an often quoted exchange between Newton and an atheist friend.

Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system, which was to be put in a room in Newton's home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can imagine, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.

Newton's atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "My, what an exquisite thing this is!" he exclaimed. "Who made it?" Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody." Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said, "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this." Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone, "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!" the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is!" Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer or maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"

"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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by wiki

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models the Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures and was very rapidly expanding and cooling.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by wiki

A superseded, or obsolete, scientific theory is a scientific theory that was once commonly accepted but that is no longer considered the most complete description of reality by a mainstream scientific consensus, or a theory which has been shown to be false.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

God can prevent 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

**BlueDemon** · 03-03-2013, 06:23 AM

I'm happy we're having such a discussion as well =)

In regards to Islam, I really try not fall in the trap that media lay everywhere, where it pretty much equals terrorism (at least in some states). I even discussed religion with a Muslim and he was pretty open-minded about it too. One of the things that bother me is, that (correct me if I'm wrong) the Jihad must be called out if any of the holy grounds of Islam is attacked/defiled. I think this was the meaning of Jihad before it got misused by extremists. Even so, I can't accept a higher being telling people to kill each other, no matter the cost.

And you even said that the Bible has been manipulated throughout time, that's one of the reasons I don't really on such writings. They've all been written by humans. Now I know the Quran was written by Mohammed and you guys say nothing has been changed since then. But how can you be sure? People are so easily manipulated by religion, some might have used that to their advantage and just changed things so they can reap the benefits. And even if that didn't happen, we see how differently different sects can interpret the words of prophets.

That's why I try to follow the "human enlightenment" path - do things because you believe it is right, not because you'll go to heaven in the Afterlife. That way, even if there is a God, he at least can't send me to hell because I didn't believe in him :P

Discussing God is always pretty tricky anyway, because if he's like all the holy books say, we as mere humans can't comprehend him. That's why Epicur's trilemma can always be countered by: "You can't understand God's ways."
And as I understand it (at least with the Christian belief), God let people have their own will. It's all about choice. And with choice come the consequences. Where there is light, there is darkness. He can't take away the evil, because then there wouldn't be any real choice. And if people do suffer in their life, there is always a better life in the afterlife if what's said in the Bible comes true.

Thanks for the vids dna, but I don't really have the time. I bookmarked it and I hope I can watch it soon

**dna2playboy** · 03-04-2013, 05:16 AM

One of the things that bother me is, that (correct me if I'm wrong) the Jihad must be called out if any of the holy grounds of Islam is attacked/defiled. I think this was the meaning of Jihad before it got misused by extremists. Even so, I can't accept a higher being telling people to kill each other, no matter the cost.

Jihad is about sacrificing one's self for the sake of God. It doesn't have to be through military means, but that is the most popularized form. For instance standing by the values of Islam even though you'll be oppressed for it, is a type of Jihad. Another example is say a Muslim is being tortured and is told by his captives that they'll stop if he gives up his religion, but he doesn't and dies, that too is Jihad. This link answers it better than I can though and is very thorough:
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/20214/jihad

Also btw islamqa.com/en is a good site to use if you have any questions about Islam.

And you even said that the Bible has been manipulated throughout time, that's one of the reasons I don't really on such writings. They've all been written by humans. Now I know the Quran was written by Mohammed and you guys say nothing has been changed since then. But how can you be sure? People are so easily manipulated by religion, some might have used that to their advantage and just changed things so they can reap the benefits. And even if that didn't happen, we see how differently different sects can interpret the words of prophets.

It's not only Muslims who say the Quran has never been changed. The reason for why it hasn't been changed, Besides God saying in it that he's protected it for all of time, is that it was revealed to Prophet Muhammed by vocally. And his companions memorized it. And even now millions of Muslims around the world have memorized the whole Quran, so that if all trace of the Quran was lost or destroyed it could be written down again, because of the millions of people who have memorized it. How many people have memorized the Bible and the Torah? It's a good reason for why it was so easy to be changed.

Different sects may interpret it differently but that's because they're not interpreting it correctly. The best interpretation of the Quran is by the Quran itself, then by how the Prophet and the companions themselves understood it. So most of the Quran doesn't really require interpretation just knowledge of the tradition of the Prophet as well as knowledge of the Quran itself. There's a whole methodology behind it. Also it should be noted that the Prophet was revealed that there would be many sects of Islam, and made it known that they are all doomed for the hellfire except for those who follow his way. It's explained well here: http://islamqa.info/en/ref/1393

That's why I try to follow the "human enlightenment" path - do things because you believe it is right, not because you'll go to heaven in the Afterlife. That way, even if there is a God, he at least can't send me to hell because I didn't believe in him :P

The problem with doing what you "think" is right, is different people have different thoughts on what's right and what's wrong. I'm confused as to your last sentence. According to Islam, and I think even Christianity and Judaism, if you don't believe in God you're going to hell. Period. In Islam it's, if you don't believe in God and the message of His oneness was revealed to you and you still deny Him, then you're going to Hell. So don't think you're safe doing what you think is right and not believing in God. God is the only objective viewer on mankind, and thus can be the only one to objectively decided what is right and what is wrong for mankind.

Discussing God is always pretty tricky anyway, because if he's like all the holy books say, we as mere humans can't comprehend him. That's why Epicur's trilemma can always be countered by: "You can't understand God's ways."
And as I understand it (at least with the Christian belief), God let people have their own will. It's all about choice. And with choice come the consequences. Where there is light, there is darkness. He can't take away the evil, because then there wouldn't be any real choice. And if people do suffer in their life, there is always a better life in the afterlife if what's said in the Bible comes true.

Thanks for the vids dna, but I don't really have the time. I bookmarked it and I hope I can watch it soon

Well we can't comprehend His whole being obviously, but we can understand what He has revealed to us through His prophets. Well like I said earlier there's no such thing as pure evil in this world anyways. A lot of times good can come from an apparent evil. But ya we have free will, so that's the will to do good or to do bad. If there was no bad, then there would be no free will like you said.

Ya I know they're long, but really if you find the time or have the desire, they are really enlightening. To be honest they're shorter than they seem, because about an hour of it, is taken up in the Q&A, so if you skipped that it would be about 40 minutes.

I want to note that, the reason I'm happy to discuss my religious beliefs a little bit here, is because of the many years I've spent with you all on this site. I haven't met any of you, but it would really be an injustice on my part not to reveal some of my true self for once, especially if you can find benefit in it for your own selves. So any questions you guys got that I can answer I'm happy to, and like I said earlier Islamqa.info/en is a really informative site, although it is geared more towards Muslims so there may be some confusion. This section of the site is more for people who aren't Muslim, so the basics: http://islamqa.info/en/cat/12

**StealDragon** · 03-04-2013, 10:49 PM