(June 5, 2016 at 4:31 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: I thought I saw the word "math" in OP, so far I don't see anything remotely resembling that!

Mathematical knowledge of his Greatness (the Oneness of God is a mathematical principle).



Here.

(June 5, 2016 at 3:53 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: Peace be upon you too; MY SHIA MUSLIM friend.

You forgot to add "Making the case for SHIA Islam"..
"Ahlu Al Bayt" must show their nose in this topic:

Quote:We know even there exists some humans who can hold praise in a way that far exceeds and is far more exalted then the general masses.

Let me guess: 
1-those people are "Imams"
2-there are 12 of them
3-you worship them
4-you're actually waiting for the last Imam (Mehdi) to come up, dig the graves of "Sunna ancient warlords like Abu-Bakr and Omar" and spills rivers of blood, that would make earth "clean" again:
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/2349...ir-graves/
Did you consider signing up as a priest here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Mo...ces_(Iraq)#Shiite _component
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/31/iraq...ia-militia

I mean, you are waiting for "Imam Mehdi", right?
And, you will reject everything I said here and "act a fool" since "acting a fool" is actually a type of worship for you people; your sunni brothers also believe in "acting fools":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya#Twelver_Shia_view

Don't misunderstand me; Mystic. I too, try to hide my faith so I don't get butchered. But doing it, to trick and fool people into my religion is one thing I see as very very low.

Like, admit to those members: You are a shia twelver who has beliefs such as this:
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/2349...ir-graves/

Your religion is built upon the hatered of Sunna (which contributed to this secterian madness in my region); frankly I don't care that much, but nowadays sunni/shia stinky flip-flops began to fly around ; and shia are such a main component in this war.

I don't want stinky flip-flips to hit me.

Not cool.

But again, what is new in this topic?
And honestly, to prove God use this verse from the Quran:

Sura 51
( 20 )   And on the earth are signs for the certain [in faith]
( 21 )   And in yourselves. Then will you not see?
( 22 )   And in the heaven is your provision and whatever you are promised.
( 23 )   Then by the Lord of the heaven and earth, indeed, it is truth - just as [sure as] it is that you are speaking.

comparing between the case in the verses, and the one your topic, would show you what I mean

So, he isn't a True Muslim™? You know.... I heard the same story between christians. Disregarding the preach, how do you go about asserting what muslim religion is true? How to find truth when you don't even know what you are looking for?

Mystic Knight, what I think you should do is just focus on one argument and see how that holds up.

What I'm reading a lot of are subjective opinions being presented as objective facts.

"When we look for signs of god without ourselves"  You're just talking about feelings towards god, or feelings about how people praise god.

I'm not nitpicking, I just want one piece of objective proof if you're going to make a case for something.  Try to not use phrases like "Balance of the cosmos" Or if you do use phrases like that then try and explain what you mean because I don't know what that means.

And I'm not big on philosophy or arguing about what objective proof is, even if you show me something that resembles objective proof will be fine.

(June 5, 2016 at 4:01 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: So far I'm just talking about general structure like the blue print behind all books revealed by God and all religions (which are all instances of the true religion) revealed by God.

So far it's mainly that God would send guidance. Not too much more then that, has been proven.

Mystic, your topic is called "Making the case for Islam"; so please stick to your context.

Quote:11. God Guides to the truth (essential cornerstone of this discussion)
2. Who guides by the truth is more worthy of being followed or those who aren't guided unless they are guided.

It seems when we don't want to follow God, or say we won't follow any representatives of God as there are no such representatives or no books revealed by God, we incline to either:

Let me guess: the 12 Imams !!!
General case indeed..

Quote:1. Follow others who aren't sure are guided.

2. Follow ourselves when we aren't sure we are guided.

Yes yes sure, you want us to follow "the 12 guided Imams" who are surely guided, and but they aren't here, so Ali Khamenei is a substitution representative .

Quote:It seems people become satisfied for misguidance rather then guidance. 

The whole gist is if God guides by the truth, then he would prove essentially those who he wants us to follow and look towards.

No. People hated Shia the most, because:
1-They are racist
2-They stink
3-They commit such barbaric acts:





Sadly they chant in Arabic..Wish if you would translate those chanting, would ya Mystic ?

So, they guys of your faith do this..chant against "Lost misguided astray Sunna" in the middle of a holy month; meaning that your whole 12 imam guidance is based on hating Sunnahs..hell, I gotta say this, you guys are a hateful bunch ! look, I dislike sunnies; A LOT, they were the reason behind my suffering in Saudi Arabia, but your "guidance"?

Hell, if that came into power, I would've became a sausage..

Quote:The absence of the manifestation of a clear proof, but a hidden proof, is up to God. It's up to God make the proof hidden or manifest.

Hidden?
Okay let me guess:
Since it's hidden, then nobody knows where it was hid, except some "special people" !!!

Right?

Okay..let's continue.

Quote:We know there is absence of manifestation of clear proof in some areas in some times, but we know God, would also not leave humanity to themselves but rather seek to guide them. That is to say, there is always a way towards God, a path towards God, a way to follow God upon certainty and be lead by him.

That is true indeed. The question is: HOW?
let me guess..through THE 12 GUIDED IMAMS !!!

So predictable !!


I

Quote:would say this essential thing to reflect upon, so manifest, so clear, that God guides to the truth yet we are inclining to those who we don't know are guided or not, and have no clear proof that they are leading us upon guidance, and following people out of ignorance, should be found emphasized in the book revealed by God.

And that God would counter this false worshipped system of idols (known as the Taghut in Quran) with leaders who inclining to would be inclining to God, and following would be following God, is essential truth to any book revealed by God.

This so far has to be an ingredient in God's book.

Behold, Mystic's guided leaders we should follow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelve_Imams
And this fanatic maniac is the replacement of these Imams (is to be followed; until one of the Imams show up):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei
MrNoMorePropaganda

Quote:Life can be tough at times. Just ask Altas with their MS, epilepsy and living Saudi with the threat of Saudi Gulags. But at least I have clean drinking water, nice food to eat and other nice things.

Indeed, Indeed. Thank you for being there, feeling, MNMP ^_^

Quote:You said it yourself, Allah has signs. We should see the signs and that good enough, no?

The plot  is that the signs are "hidden", and can only be unlocked and found at the hands of the 12 guided Imams, who ironically ALL come from the same family.

Quote:So why does Allah need all of these different names? We are told Allah can do anything after all. Some of the names aren't even in the Quran - they are found only in the Hadith, and people disagree on them -  and I'm sure Atlas can elaborate on this.

Well, it's always about the "purpose" after all, one can refer to him with what he called himself with in revelation he revealed; it won't matter. The names are not just names; they are "adjectives" too; qualities. A God will have many qualities indeed, but the "99" thingy is, after all, a Hadith.

The plot would be applied here too: by giving God "too many names", the "Imam" would have a bluffing chance to claim that he know a certain "hidden name" that God magically obey prayers when he's called by the certain hidden name.

Magic stuff; no joke. many muslims love these things; the "mystical pre-Islamic Arabian dark magic" things..
Alladin stuff.

In Saudi Arabia, you can't believe the amounts of money the natives pay for certain "blessed,knowledgabla sheikhs" who work as "demon busters" and fight "black magic". Sunnah are so messed up indeed; all Muslims are TBH xD

While in reality, the Quran was so simple and decisive about this names thing:

Sura 17
( 110 )   Say, "Call upon Allah or call upon the Most Merciful. Whichever [name] you call - to Him belong the best names." And do not recite [too] loudly in your prayer or [too] quietly but seek between that an [intermediate] way.

Quote:Do I utter a different name of Allah depending on what Dua outcome I want? I'm not really sure that you've told us why names are important. Mathematics, people have argued that before about the Quran - but it's nothing a human couldn't do - especially with all kinds of amazing computer hardware and software of today.

According to sura 17, it wouldn't really matter 

(June 5, 2016 at 6:11 pm)LastPoet Wrote: So, he isn't a True Muslim™? You know.... I heard the same story between christians. Disregarding the preach, how do you go about asserting what muslim religion is true? How to find truth when you don't even know what you are looking for?

Well, where is he from the source?
When the main book in Islam is the Quran..but you demand me to follow another book, that came 400 years after the main book, then tell me again: who's the "trurer' Muslim?

I think sticking to the source is the most authentic thing. 
Following what the "Ayatollah"s in Tehran are saying, is a different different thing

@paulpablo

I think I've discussed the issue of value/praise/morality in a way in the past threads and over the years, that it is linked to God and that God it's ultimate source and basis. 

Ultimately, I don't mind going through these discussions again. 

The problem is that Atheists want to say that moral statements are neither true or false but rather they are simply what a person thinks. Praise statements are also neither true or false.

But logic dictates that all statements are either true or false. A statement like "chocolate tastes better then in vanilla" is not true, because it's not a universally objective. It is not true in all cases. There exists a case in which to a person, vanilla tastes better. The statement "vanilla tastes better then chocolate" is also false.

However is the same true of moral statements as far as humans go? Can we say it's wrong for a human to torture another human for simply pleasure? I hope we can say that much. Empathy doesn't necessarily have to be the basis, there is people with little to no empathy, yet they acknowledge moral facts. 

That is not to say empathy is not important. But what I'm saying, are there moral facts. Are there even general moral facts.  Even if they aren't universal, are there objective more facts regarding people. For example, what color I chose to like the most there perhaps is no should, but it's rather up to me. But is the same true of praise? Can I simply decide what is praiseworthy or what is not? Can society simply decide that for me as well?

If I can't simply decide, why can mutations that survived from evolution, decide that for me? What authority do they have to dictate me what I should do or what is better for me to do?

At the end of the day, we cannot even value an act without belief in that there is some value to the person we are praising for that action and state of being.   But as discussed before in other threads, we cannot decide what a value of ourselves or others are. It's like looking at the moon, I can estimate it's size, but at the end, that doesn't make it's size. I can not estimate it's size but believe it's something, but that won't define it either. Yet when it comes to value of the humans, it's not such that it simply exists in space or 3d, it's a something that is experienced with perception.

We require an objective perception to who we are to have objective value. But we aren't that impartial judge nor have that perception. At the same time, if we make it the case that we don't have value, we simply believe we do, or we make one according to our standards, then it's really a delusion. It has no basis, we believe there is an objective value to people even if we don't know there is.

Now all this doesn't prove God because I haven't proved that we are justified in believing in value or praise. However, I feel like it's obvious and it's even in your every day language, that praise propositional facts exist. 


Value propositional statements are often true or false, in that they apply generally to humans, even though a few exceptions can exist.

You guys acknowledge praise and it's objectivity all the time. But whenever God is proven by it,  then it is attacked and said to be purely subjective.

(June 5, 2016 at 10:58 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: @paulplabo

I think I've discussed the issue of value/praise/morality in a way in the past threads and over the years, that it is linked to God and that God it's ultimate source and basis. 

Ultimately, I don't mind going through these discussions again. 

The problem is that Atheists want to say that moral statements are neither true or false but rather they are simply what a person thinks. Praise statements are also neither true or false.

"The problem is that Atheists want to say that moral statements are neither true or false but rather they are simply what a person thinks."

1) I don't know if this is true of all atheists.
2) You're wording of this is dishonest in a suggestive way.  You're suggesting that atheists haven't rationally come to the conclusion that morals are what someone thinks morals are, but rather they just WANT to say it.  It's just desirable rather than rational.

It would be more accurate to say that some atheists have reasoned that moral statements are based on what people think rather than what god has told them because they don't believe god exists.

Ok I'll carry on reading now.

(June 5, 2016 at 10:58 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: But logic dictates that all statements are either true or false. A statement like "chocolate tastes better then in vanilla" is not true, because it's not a universally objective. It is not true in all cases. There exists a case in which to a person, vanilla tastes better. The statement "vanilla tastes better then chocolate" is also false.

However is the same true of moral statements as far as humans go? Can we say it's wrong for a human to torture another human for simply pleasure? I hope we can say that much. Empathy doesn't necessarily have to be the basis, there are people with little to no empathy, yet they acknowledge moral facts. 

Ok but as an atheist I would say human empathy is always the basis of moral statements.  I don't know what you mean by moral facts.  

Taking away the assumption that god exists and just looking and what you're saying here from a straightforward, no gods involved perspective I'd say that all you can really honestly say is that people no empathy acknowledge that other people with empathy have moral codes which they live by and they will likely face punishment at some point like prison if they act without empathy all the time towards other people all the time.

(June 5, 2016 at 11:14 pm)paulpablo Wrote: 1) I don't know if this is true of all atheists.

I don't believe this is the case for all Atheists. It seems to be the case of most Atheists I've discussed with regarding this issue. But essentially you are right in that I shouldn't be making a general statement out of that. I've only experienced with a limited number of Atheists.

Quote:2) You're wording of this is dishonest in a suggestive way.  You're suggesting that atheists haven't rationally come to the conclusion that morals are what someone thinks morals are, but rather they just WANT to say it.  It's just desirable rather than rational.

It would be more accurate to say that some atheists have reasoned that moral statements are based on what people think rather than what god has told them because they don't believe god exists.

Ok I'll carry on reading now.

I don't believe reason has anything to do with disbelieving objective praise or morality, but rather it's arch enemy, desire of the vain type, is the reason.

I truly believe now no one honestly believes in themselves objective praise or morals don't exist at all.

(June 5, 2016 at 11:21 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(June 5, 2016 at 11:14 pm)paulpablo Wrote: 1) I don't know if this is true of all atheists.

I don't believe this is the case for all Atheists. It seems to be the case of most Atheists I've discussed with regarding this issue. But essentially you are right in that I shouldn't be making a general statement out of that. I've only experienced with a limited number of Atheists.

Quote:2) You're wording of this is dishonest in a suggestive way.  You're suggesting that atheists haven't rationally come to the conclusion that morals are what someone thinks morals are, but rather they just WANT to say it.  It's just desirable rather than rational.

It would be more accurate to say that some atheists have reasoned that moral statements are based on what people think rather than what god has told them because they don't believe god exists.

Ok I'll carry on reading now.

I don't believe reason has anything to do with disbelieving objective praise or morality, but rather it's arch enemy, desire of the vain type, is the reason.

I truly believe now no one honestly believes in themselves objective praise or morals don't exist at all.

Regardless of morals being objective or subjective, I believe that morals come from what people think.  I'm an atheist, I believe that we only have evidence of communication concerning morals from other humans.

Morals could have been communicated to us via aliens, god, weird vague spirit type things, I don't know.  But I have no evidence of those things, I only have evidence of other humans.