(June 11, 2021 at 11:46 am)purplepurpose Wrote:

(June 10, 2021 at 2:56 pm)WinterHold Wrote: According to Islam, God is the creator of Satan, and the maker of this scenario we are living.
He knew that Satan would rebel even before he made him.

Look at this Quranic verses:



This life is a mere test against Satan. Why would God stop the main problem in our test?
Satan will always exist in this life, and our whole life is "a battle against him".

So the question doesn't make any sense according to Islam's message.

Christians want their God to be caring and loving. If Islam is openly stating that satan works under God to cause suffering to people, or test their loyalty towads Gods holy law and plan, THEN God is evil, if he directs satan to cause so much suffering. It will cause rebellion among conscious and thinking christians. It's is for the reason that Satan is a rebellious and isn't Gods employee, according to so many sermons by christians preachers.

He doesn't work under God. God created him and gave him the choice to either rebel or submit:

Quote:Sura 17, The Quran:
https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#...rans=en_sh

( 61 )   And [mention] when We said to the angles, "Prostrate to Adam," and they prostrated, except for Satan. He said, "Should I prostrate to one You created from clay?"

( 62 )   [Satan] said, "Do You see this one whom You have honored above me? If You delay me until the Day of Resurrection, I will surely destroy his descendants, except for a few."

Satan was a righteous being once upon a time as it seems to the level of him attending with the angels themselves. But God "tested him" with "Adam's creation". Satan was extremely racist and couldn't handle prostrating to a creature made of clay -Satan is made out of fire-.

He failed his test and chose to go on this eternal crusade against mankind to drag them into hell with him.
God knew he will choose this before he created him, he knows our destinies and our future; that's a corner of faith in Islam's message.

So no, God is "a creator of all things including evil", but he is not evil, actually he wrote mercy upon himself:

Quote:Sura 6, The Quran:
https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#...rans=en_sh

( 12 )   Say, "To whom belongs whatever is in the heavens and earth?" Say, "To Allah." He has decreed upon Himself mercy. He will surely assemble you for the Day of Resurrection, about which there is no doubt. Those who will lose themselves [that Day] do not believe.

(June 11, 2021 at 7:15 pm)WinterHold Wrote:

(June 11, 2021 at 11:46 am)purplepurpose Wrote: Christians want their God to be caring and loving. If Islam is openly stating that satan works under God to cause suffering to people, or test their loyalty towads Gods holy law and plan, THEN God is evil, if he directs satan to cause so much suffering. It will cause rebellion among conscious and thinking christians. It's is for the reason that Satan is a rebellious and isn't Gods employee, according to so many sermons by christians preachers.

Quote:A complicated lasagna recipe

Quote:Fat man had his faults... but he made his exit with style. --James Howlett (Earth-616)

You do realize that we're not made of clay, right winter....? Anywho, last I checked, allah didn't own me, so there seems to be a few things that aren't his. I presume that he knows where I live if he cares to register a complaint about his claim to my status as human chattel.

(June 11, 2021 at 3:44 pm)Astreja Wrote: Stop. Right. There!  Usefulness and uselessness have nothing to do with whether or not something was designed.

(June 11, 2021 at 4:18 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Yeah that's what I just said, LOL. What then, according to you, enables us to discern design from non-design, aside from usefulness of course.

Have you never walked in the woods and picked wild berries?  I have.  Non-cultivated (i.e. not designed), naturally occurring strawberries and raspberies.  Very tasty.  Very useful.  No design, just many, many years of undirected evolution via natural selection.

And have you never seen these designed Useless Objects?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiG13q79iQE

(June 11, 2021 at 11:01 pm)Astreja Wrote:

(June 11, 2021 at 3:44 pm)Astreja Wrote: Stop. Right. There!  Usefulness and uselessness have nothing to do with whether or not something was designed.

(June 11, 2021 at 4:18 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Yeah that's what I just said, LOL. What then, according to you, enables us to discern design from non-design, aside from usefulness of course.

Have you never walked in the woods and picked wild berries?  I have.  Non-cultivated (i.e. not designed), naturally occurring strawberries and raspberies.  Very tasty.  Very useful.  No design, just many, many years of undirected evolution via natural selection.

And have you never seen these designed Useless Objects?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiG13q79iQE

Stuff intentionally designed to be useless 

https://www.boredpanda.com/useless-objec...gn=organic

And there is no reason to think something that wasn't designed wouldn't theoretically be useful

Lastly, it's not our job to define design.

Not all concepts deserve surviving the evolution of humanity. God, being one of those primitive ideas, has run its course and should serve only as a historical reminder that mythology has its place in the grand halls of fiction.

(June 11, 2021 at 11:01 pm)Astreja Wrote:

(June 11, 2021 at 3:44 pm)Astreja Wrote: Stop. Right. There!  Usefulness and uselessness have nothing to do with whether or not something was designed.

(June 11, 2021 at 4:18 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Yeah that's what I just said, LOL. What then, according to you, enables us to discern design from non-design, aside from usefulness of course.

Have you never walked in the woods and picked wild berries?  I have.  Non-cultivated (i.e. not designed), naturally occurring strawberries and raspberies.  Very tasty.  Very useful.  No design, just many, many years of undirected evolution via natural selection.

And have you never seen these designed Useless Objects?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiG13q79iQE

A minor warning he may try and define useful as functional. That if any component of the machine does something it must be useful or he may try and define useful as orderly. Both of these moves are of course slimy. But I have heard IDiots use similar tactics.

double post, lol

(June 11, 2021 at 4:18 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(June 10, 2021 at 3:07 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Which axioms would those be, for you and the atheist?

Aside from God's existence, we all share the first principles of thought (identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle) and our own existence as axioms. Unfortunately they are not enough to prove that there is an external reality, that's why Descartes was a theist, he understood that without presupposing God we are just stuck with solipsism.

Well, setting aside that we don't all share those first principles, either necessarily, or in fact, and that there's nothing inherently incoherent about solipsism (and bear in mind that a solipsist is an atheist), I think we need to back up a moment here. You said that without reference to an absolute, nothing you say has any truth value whatsoever. You readily acknowledge that you do not have access to God, and so you cannot reference any of your beliefs with respect to an absolute (God), and so by your own admission, nothing that you, Klorophyl, say has any truth value whatsoever. So given that, rejecting your assertion that the axioms underpinning an atheist's world are incoherent is true takes no effort whatsoever since you've acknowledged that it isn't incoherent in any absolute sense and that nothing you say has a truth value.

While this is a handy sidestep, and I'm content to avail myself of it, I still don't understand why you feel the atheist worldview is incoherent. You'll need to explain that more fully. Start with explaining what is incoherent with the hard solipsist's worldview. And once you've done that, you've provided good reason to embrace an alternative without needing to reference any absolute.

And as long as we're talking about incoherence, I'll simply point out that coherence is a relatively cheap commodity. If my worldview happens to be incoherent, I can solve that problem by rejecting or adding one or more axioms. Coherence can be cheaply bought. Pyhhronic skepticism would seem to be immune to the complaints you are making because it doesn't choose to embrace any axioms. But if it can be cheaply bought, it can be hard to regain for some people. In particular, the Abrahamic god is himself incoherent. And since the god of Islam is an Abrahamic god, that means that your lodestar is itself a hotbed of coherence problems.

(June 11, 2021 at 4:18 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Yeah that's what I just said, LOL. What then, according to you, enables us to discern design from non-design, aside from usefulness of course.

Pony up Kloro. Give an example of something, anything that is not designed.

Or are you simply avoiding the question like the coward you are?