(August 7, 2013 at 4:11 pm)Locke Wrote: In our present age, we have more information at our fingertips than we can find time to process. With so many signals thrown at us, we tend to latch on to the simplistic answers we find to complex questions in life. When we want to know something, a quick google search sometimes suffices in place of a thorough investigation - after all, with so much to know there's little time to investigate every matter. We find quick results on wikipedia and turn around to spit out opinionated views on every subject. Rather than fleshing out the truth of a matter, we can decide what we think about something and then pull up the evidence that supports our claim.
If we really want to find answers to the questions we have, or find direction in our lives, can we really look it up on the Web? How do we know the person who wrote a wikipedia article has a better answer to the existence of God than we do? If God is just a projection of our psyche, then we can find every answer we need by asking google. In that case God wouldn't be worth seeking in the first place.

However, considering the possibility of whether or not God is real and existent outside of our psyche, the only way to derive the answer is through a more thorough search. Confronting the issue from an impatient angle can form a fruitless cycle. On the other hand, anyone willing to pay attention, consider and weigh all possibilities, will find answers.

But before we begin such an endeavor, we must honestly ask ourselves whether we are approaching the task with a determination to justify our opinions, negate another's stance, or discover the truth.

Well, the approach to determining the truthiness of anything is to consider the evidence for and against it. If speaking specifically about the existence of the Judeo-Christian god, then the only evidence "for" is the Torah/Bible, and thus the postulation must be judged on the validity of these books. Having partially read them, I do not think they make a convincing case for the existence of a god, so I reject the claim.

I can tell you that the genesis of my becoming an atheist was my finally getting around to reading the Bible, and being confounded by the differences in the actions of God in the Old Testament from the New one.

(August 9, 2013 at 8:20 pm)Wallaby Wrote: Well, the approach to determining the truthiness of anything is to consider the evidence for and against it.

lol at "truthiness." But correction: this is NOT the correct method of determining truthiness. The correct method is to choose what feels right, and especially what you feel the answer should be.

(August 9, 2013 at 8:20 pm)Wallaby Wrote: I can tell you that the genesis of my becoming an atheist was my finally getting around to reading the Bible, and being confounded by the differences in the actions of God in the Old Testament from the New one.

lol

Gotta love those Jews and their indecipherable stylie. I blame lowering education standards

(August 9, 2013 at 2:10 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Don't you start!

If Allah created everything, isn't Allah also in nature? Wouldn't nature be made of the substance that created it? Or do you believe that creation and Allah are separate?

1. I don't believe that the Creator and creation are necessarily made of the same substance.

2. I agree that Allah is in nature (and everywhere, for that matter), but He has a much greater and a deeper meaning than just "Nature." The word "nature" sounds too simplistic and impersonal. It seems to be more strongly associated with the material world and/or with physical environments.

In Islam, one of the attributes of Allah is called "Al-Haqq," and this particular term has simultaneous meanings which can be translated as "The Truth" and the "The Reality." Al-Haqq = the Truth, the Reality. Therefore, based on those definitions, Allah being the truth essentially refers to the obvious reality that one must answer to Him eventually.

Not only that, but the name "Al-Haqq" has even more layers of meanings that are all complementary with the first two meanings (as listed below):

Quote:From the root h-q-q which has the following classical Arabic connotations:

to be suitable to the requirements of wisdom, justice, truth or fact
to be in accord with the needs of the situation
to be true, right, correct, just, proper
to be genuine, authentic, real, sound, substantial
to be established, confirmed as fact
to be necessary, requisite, justified
to be unavoidable, inevitable, due
to be binding, obligatory, incumbent upon
to happen without doubt or uncertainty

So, unlike the common understanding of reality, we believe that this "reality" that the Quran speaks of - "Al-Haqq" - has a personality and has a mind of its own which are suggested by the other definitions of "Al-Haqq" in addition to the other names or attributes of Allah. This shows that the Arabic names that point to the attributes of Allah are so rich in meanings that oftentimes it is not possible to find a perfect, single translation for them.

"God is nature" is technically correct, yes, but it is incomplete and misleading because it ignores the personal attributes of His existence.

(August 10, 2013 at 5:27 am)Rayaan Wrote: "God is nature" is technically correct, yes, but it is incomplete and misleading because it ignores the personal attributes of His existence.

What I love about god is that he is so malleable that he can be formed into anything any human being wishes him to be.

I remember when I was younger, still religious, and I read Anne Rice's Memnoch the Devil. Her version of god in that book was quite different from the typical Christian version, but it made a certain kind of sense that god could very well be the kind of higher being that created life not knowing what he was doing. As mankind learned, so did god. In an ironic sort of way, it reflects the more logical notion that mankind created god as an explanation for his existence.

Yes Rayaan I've said before... God has to be more than nature. As actuality only God is everything. Everything emanating from him has to be lesser than him. You took my statement too literally. I'm surprised that you don't know my position on that already.

If you don't believe that the creator and the created are the same substance, you must be saying that Allah is not prima. Another substance not Allah existed at least at the same time, if not before Allah. So Allah is not the creator of everything, but must owe his creation to a previous force, the same as if he appeared at the same time as this separate substance that he did not create. Either you're wrong in that or Allah is demoted.

(August 10, 2013 at 5:48 am)fr0d0 Wrote: If you don't believe that the creator and the created are the same substance.

They are, of course, considering mankind is the creator who created god, except that god has no substance considering he is derived from the imagination of man.

(August 10, 2013 at 5:48 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes Rayaan I've said before... God has to be more than nature. As actuality only God is everything. Everything emanating from him has to be lesser than him.

Okay, then - we agree on that.

(August 10, 2013 at 5:48 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You took my statement too literally.

I suppose I did, but I think you should have made that statement a little more clear also.

(August 10, 2013 at 5:48 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I'm surprised that you don't know my position on that already.

Maybe YOU don't even know what your position is.

(August 10, 2013 at 5:48 am)fr0d0 Wrote: If you don't believe that the creator and the created are the same substance, you must be saying that Allah is not prima. Another substance not Allah existed at least at the same time, if not before Allah. So Allah is not the creator of everything, but must owe his creation to a previous force, the same as if he appeared at the same time as this separate substance that he did not create. Either you're wrong in that or Allah is demoted.

Two of Allah's attributes mentioned in the Quran are that (He is) "The First" and "The Last" ("Al-Awwal" and "Al-Akhir," respectively), so we believe that there wasn't anything before Allah. Secondly, if Allah is The First, then that means that there couldn't have existed something else at the same time as Allah. Allah is first and then came everything else. Not to mention that there is no such thing as "before Allah" because Allah is eternal.

We also do not know exactly how Allah creates, do we? So why should I think that Allah and His creations are made of the same substance?

(August 10, 2013 at 5:34 am)Maelstrom Wrote: What I love about god is that he is so malleable that he can be formed into anything any human being wishes him to be.

Yeah, people can form him into anything they wish him to be, into hundreds or thousands of different things, but that doesn't mean that they do so in reality.

There is just only one god.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:05 am)Rayaan Wrote: Yeah, people can form him into anything they wish him to be, into hundreds or thousands of different things, but that doesn't mean that they do so in reality.

Reality is all there is, and anything that lacks evidence to support its existence is not a part of reality. It is instead a part of mankind's imagination, for without a answer that must be answered right now, mankind tends to resort to the fantasy world where he makes up his own answer.