The existence of God 2006
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: General
Forum Name: Science & Technology
Forum Description: It is devoted for Science & Technology
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2301
Printed Date: 11 December 2024 at 6:00pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The existence of God 2006
Posted By: Israfil
Subject: The existence of God 2006
Date Posted: 15 September 2005 at 5:51pm
|
The following is a made up dialogue between me and an atheist. I did this because this is a fun way to kind of play both myself and "devil's advocate." any responses from myself on the opposite end in no way reflect any internal thoughts I have of my faith. I encourage anyone to respond either to my name or to the other. Remember this is fun and in no way am I crazy for talking to myself LO L  Atheist: so why did you bring me to this "God forsaken" place? >>To take you out of your element. Atheist: what elem ent was that? >>The world. Atheist: So the world is my element eh? Well i suppose the world is real and relevant. >>relevant in what sense? Atheist: The world is relevant in the sense that its not made up through imaginary sensations nor is it something so grand that it is not felt by the senses but in fact is real and grand and is felt by my senses, unlike your god of course. >>So you're saying that my God being so grand is incomprehensible in every aspect? Atheist: yes and No. What I am saying is that how your theology presents itself, it leaves no room to test such a ridiculous hypothesis on the existence of God. If such grand presumptions are made especially if they are hypothesis which may run contrary to years of scientific study I say why not present the physical evidence. >>I see. Let me ask you, do you believe in possibilities. Atheist: Yes i believe in possibilities so long as they correspond to their plausibility. >>Wait, so you believe in possibilities yes or no? Atheist: ah the ole' philosophers trap! To entertain you yes i believe in possibilities. >>This is no trap, but a simple question. Atheist: I again state that I do believe in possibilities so long as they correspond to their plausibility. >> I see, but where you are confused in that sense is that before something is possible its 'potential' and if something is potential it is either in a state of coming into existence or non- existence Atheist: What do you mean? >> Well we all know that at the moment of conception we can say that after the period of the life cycle it is 'plausible' to reasonably estimate the 'possibility that the baby would be either a girl or a boy. Atheist: Well yes depending on the fertilization stages yes, but we as a scientific community know that there is no way to know whether the child will come out as one particular sex that is a mystery of love making. >>True, but wouldn't such an analogy be the same as it would be for God? Atheist: No because we can physical prove that in the life cycle after conception what occurs and even though we don't know what specific sex will be chosen we at least can measure the term where a woman is preganant. in some cases we are wrong because sometimes in various circumstance a woman may have a child early and could have a premature baby. whereas for God there is no type of pysical measurement nor are there any speculations that can lead to God's plausibility. >>But you just said you believe in possibilities. Atheist: I do believe in possibilities so long as they relate to their plausibility. as for the baby boy its possible it can be a girl i cannot determine which way it will end up. but because science has measured the life cycle we "know" that this could go either way. You have other ways to determine the outcome but i prefer the natural way of conception. :) >>I'm sure you do. But if we are to start anywhere its best to start at the possibilities. I believe it is also possible to prove the existence of God. I have personally obtained the belief that such a being is too incomprehensible for the mind to comprehend. similar with looking at a bright light such as the sun. The eyes being fragile as they are naturally squint when it comes into contact with brightness. Therefore as they squint the brain cannot comprehend the brightness of the light because the eyes are witholding the energy of the sun. Atheist: tue, but the difference in that analogy is that the sun is a comprehensible force because you know its there. With God how can the mind "squint" at something that it doesn't physical know its there. >>Perhaps God is too great of a force for any mind to squint. Suppose that God's being is so great that any physical emanation of the divine cannot be comprehended physically. Atheist: So are we going to the soul theory now? >>Well does it sound like it? (Part 2 later) Contemplate for now on this dialogue. |
Replies:
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 19 September 2005 at 5:18pm
|
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 |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 22 September 2005 at 1:55pm
|
>>The soul is not responsible for the disease of the human
body because the soul is a different principle that that of disease. Since disease is the consequential causation opposite of health, it is therefore understood that the human body is the causation of disease not the soul. he soul's purpose is the causation of life and existence itself but it has no other attributes. Whereas the human body composed of various forms and fuctions its purpose is to sustain itself and its way of being through biological and generative methods. If there is an interuption in this this accroding the philosophers would be termed as an "accident." Such as the human body being sustained everyday if there were to occur some type of illness or sickness then this is an accident of the body because its an interruption of the body's present state. Again we must identity these differences because the purpose of the soul and that of sickness are different. Now I mentioned that the soul causes death, but its not through personal action that it does so but because of its principle. The soul being immaterial and of divine essence cannot be (by rule) sustained in a finite being. Because (1) the soul is imaterial and the body is material substance (2) the soul has a different essence of the body. Perhaps somewhere in this subject God decreed that the soul take the life of a human. This is almost like the battery in a toy to allow it to function. Once the battery is drained the toy ceases to function hence momentary death. Whereas the soul on the other hand is somewhat opposite of this. The soul does no lose "life" nor is it succumb to death, only the body it inhabits. Atheist: Ok so you mention a parallel between the soul being like a battery (but in reality isn't) in a toy and through progression annihilates the body it inhabits. Now you mention that this was a decree by God but then again, we have to raise the question that isn't it possible to think that this is a natural law amongst life forms and not some divine plan? >>Yes we can say that and this is quite plausible but it makes the divine refernece no less plausible. Remember our point as theologians and philsoophers is not to say what entirely is but what seems logical. Atheist: Well I have to disagree that this doesn't seem logical because you are trying to convince me on something I really don't believe in and its not helping me. >>Well you quit trying to ind ou what you can get from what I'm saying and just listen first. The problem with atheist is the arrogance and the egoism. You feel the burden of proof is on us when it isn't. It's almost like you are asking for faith through dialetical means and I cannot help you with that. Atheist: What can you help me with then? >>To understand our position. Atheist: I understand you're position you're- >> I'm not finished and no you don't understand our position. You want proof. I told you I don't have physical proof. I made a couple analogies and you try to shoot them down through your repetitive remarks. How can you understand something with a pre-conceived notion? Sincerity in faith cannot come from assertions or speculatory comments. It comes from sincerity and a willingness to TRY to understand. Atheist: Ok let's start over then... How can I know God, or know God's existence? >> That's much better.. (part 4) Next. |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 26 September 2005 at 6:20pm
|
>>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 |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 01 October 2005 at 11:05pm
|
Atheist: Again your position is not proving anything but an opinion to support another opinion which based upon ANOTHER OPINION! >>Our position here is to show the atheist such as yourself that God does not allow things to happen because God is inactive a lot of what happens is out of natural principle and that which is natural principle (or divine) is unchanged. If such is changed then it would be considered miraculous, but even if its considered miraculous the miracle itself would in fact coincide with the natural forces i.e Jesus turning water into wine. Atheist: first and foremost even if we were to take that position into consideration it would be a poor example for you to use the Jesus aspect because that as I have mentioned before is possible but not plausible. These doctrines you would call articles of faith are based on faith. To say prophets doing miracles as something that would prove anything "divine" again are matters of faith. As far as your position on the issue with God's will then perhaps I would be willing to accept that if there was something within the act of God that would lead me to believe that it would be a "will" of some divine Creator. For instance when a child is saved from death how do I know that the revival of the child is not from the medical technology? What principle in between divine will and the will of mankind that distinguishes those two? >>Well when you are talking about the revival of a child that principle you are talking about is a miracle. If death is inevitable especially if an incident occured where it would effect the vitality of a sentient being then if another principle obstructs that, that would be a miracle especially if the effect is opposite. Now as far as the methods of that is concerned I would say that it is both. The inevitability of death is there again as we have explained before but if the being has to fulfil some type of purpose I believe God equips the body to retain some life where it makes miracles possible. When we use the method of CPR for instances to revive a child who drowned our knowledge alone along with proper technique makes it a greater possibility to actualize miracles. Atheist: I still don't believe in miracles as they are nothing more than acts of faith. I'd rather say that the revival of a child is from the technology of mankind rather than some miracle from some imaginary god. >>That is your belief. Atheist: So let's talk about eschatology. |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 10 October 2005 at 4:57pm
|
>> 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... |