The existence of God 2006

Atheist: So we are back ehre again eh? now tell me about the
soul does it exist like your god?

>>I believe the soul does exist?

Atheist: Can you prove it? Or is it one of those "invisible and
incomprehensible" entities?

>>Why would you say such things sarcastically? The souls
principle nature is incomprehensible because its nature is
opposite of a corporeal being.

Atheist: If its nature is opposite of a coporeal being then how
can you legitimately prove its existence physically or through
dialectical means?

>>To you I don't have to since you believe in the possibilities in
relation to their plausibility. We "know" of super small atoms
that exist and are "invisible" from the naked eye we know that
there are energy particles which the sun emits which are
invisible and incoporeal. Prior to our advances we knew the
sun emits energy and that the energy was beneficial

Atheist: yes but how is the soul beneficial?

>>Well fom my understanding like those energetic particles
from the sun the soul which is the essence of life from God is an
incoporeal entity in which gives life to a coporeal being, but in
consequnce of universal laws since it is in actuality immortal
and infinite it therefore annihilates the physical substance of
atoms because of its very nature.

Atheist: So old age and death are the result of the soul's great
power?

>>No what I'm saying is that using two opposite principles
results in a consequence of that action, in this case the
placement of the soul within the body is death.

Atheist: But what about disease and abnormalities? Disease
can cease the life of any person so are diseases the result of of
the soul or is it different? If different how is this not relating to
the soul?

>>Diseases are different from the soul because they are
accidents of the human body. The gradual annihilation of the
body is thus increased once the body is diseased. The same
with abnormalities.

Atheist: Hmmmm so soul's are not responsible for diseases but
responsible for death, in that case how do we know that the
soul is not the cause od disease?

(part 3) coming soon

>>I cannot tell you how you can know God because this is an individual
experience, but there are some rules of guidence. Most of the Abrahamic
faiths acknowledge that God is everywhere nd ever-present and therefore
you cannot go anywhere in the world (or the universe) and not know God.
God is every experience and ever moment and every breathe. You do have
doctrine and most notably the Qur'an which states that God is nearer to
mankind than his own veins. The Bible states that God breathe into man
"life" the underlying tones say that God is always near to life forms
whereever they are in the world and in the universe.

Atheist: Wow very poetic you thought of that?

>>No.

Atheist: So you say God is every experience? What about violent wars and
innocent people dying are they the work of God? And please don't use the
"It's his will stuff."

>> Well it is his will because everything in life has an action which
determines a particular outcome sometimes these actions are
coincidental and some are accidental and some are pre-determined. Such
as the man whose house falls on him is both coincidental because he
happens to be in teh house as it is collapsing. We can say a boy falling off
his bike is accidental because the action of him peddling his bike was
interupted by another action (this we call the imperfection of action)
which caused him to fall. And the student who fails his test did not, the
night before study for this exam thouroughly which pre-determined the
latter outcome on the text.

Atheist: So there are three columns where God acts eh? Now which of
these columns God use to screw with mankind?

>>God does not screw with mankind its a test in all respects

Atheist: How? How can the sufferings of people be a test.

>>Its not the "suffering" its how we act upon of knowledge of a situation.
When we see suffering what do we do? Are we sympathetic with our
thoughts or are we sympathetic and acts those thoughts out? Sometimes
how we view these things are themselves determinants of our actions.

Atheist: Hmmmm

>> What do you wish to know about it?

Atheist: It all falls under the presumption of the doomed being
condemned to hell and the good to heaven, but all this is
decided by the will of God and judgement right?

>>Yes in a way

Atheist: In a way how?

>In a way that the knowledge of god is not the determinant of
whether we go to Heaven or Hell but our actions

Atheist: but obviously his knowledge "knows" what we do prior
to our actions and thus he knows what we will do and what we
will not do.

>>are you getting into freewiil?

Atheist: Yes its all the same to me

>>Islamic eschatology is different. Islam of course endorses the
belief in freewill but the kind of freewill is not that we are
naturally born free. Our intellect being the highest degree is
what separates us from the animal kingdom because we can
make independent choices from the natural choices we would
make as animals of lower intellect. It is because of such that
separates us from all others thus the freedom of intellect.

This freedom of intellect is the determinant of choice because
we are aware of what we do. God of course knows what we will
do and how we will do it. This descends into the universal law
which then is assimilated in the intellect of sentient beings who
by this law act accordingly. as for humans we have both this
natural instinct and the intellect of choice and logic.

You atheist may use the argument that we are not free and that
God has created being with his mind already made up.
Perhaps this is true. This can be equated to the universal laws
that are standard among sentient beings, what I mean is the
laws of biology. We know that the mind comprehends the
signals of the body. We know that when a human needs to eat
the nerves in the stomach area (or the areas surrounding this
function) signals the brain with impulses that feed the
information of what it is to be hungry to the brain.

Not only is this a natural instinct to eat a function of all sentient
beings(although the level of hunger may differ from creature to
creature) but a constant action unless illness occurs which may
hinder this. Also comparable to this is the elliptical rotation of
the planets. There is one direction where they rotate (west to
east) because of the gravitational pull of the sun. This constant
principle is contigent upon the power of the sun. Now if an
accident occured where the sun loss energy then the direction
would slow which may change the direction of the planets, but
as we know so far this isn't so.

The same with eschatology. We who believe in God know that
there are rules to be obeyed and rules to go by. We also know
that those who are deemed good by us may not be deemed
good by God. You have to understand that our knowledge is
not like God therefore the principle of eschatology as we know
it is only translated as a type of theory in the sense. We may
think those who are unbelievers are condemend to hell but
what if in the end there is a life changing event? We may never
know that is why we say God knows best.

But as far as the philosophy is concerned there is that constant
principle which through belief states that those who believe in
God and do good we find everlasting peace in the end.

Atheist: What if you do good but aren't spiritual?

>>God knows best

Atheist; What if I don't believe God knows best, what if I don't
believe in a god? In your opinion in your faith what do you think
will happen to me?

>>Islamic eschatology states that an unbeliever who dies in
denial will suffer. Not only physically but spiritually because
hell is what separates the sul from its origin of existence which
is God. In my opinion that alone is the ultimate suffering.

Atheist: So what makes you think I'll believe in a god who
condemns a good person just on the basis of belief?

>>It is not on the basis of belief that God condemns man but on
mankind's arrogance. Leaving religion out of it an agnostic has
a better chance than an atheist because an agnostic has not
denied the existence of God nor endorsed it. This is the first
step. I believe that if we had a discussion alone as we are
having now on the existence of God, your first thought
shouldn't be "I don't believe god exist because of proof." To me
that is arrogant.

Atheist: WAIT HOW SO?

>>It's arrogant because as I mentioned before you don't believe
in that possibility nor are you willing to accvept that possibility.

Atheist: Ok, if I do believe in that possibility how can I not give
into the possibility of gnomes, elves and mythical creatures?

>>Because the xistence of God is more logical. We are talking
about an entity whose physical existence is unknown to us but
is known logically through the mysterious nature of life. We
know that it couldn't be alien deities because inhabitants of
higher intillect cannot harness the power of creation. The
complexity in nature alone is enough to show that there aren't
deities capable of doing this. We say its not gods because it
doesn't take 4 gods to do one thing. The act alone would prove
that it only took one action to do one thing.

We say its one God because from one moment, one action all
of the universe(s) sprang forth.

Atheist: interesting...