You can say that, but I don't believe in God, so your assertions are utterly vacuous to me.

Can you construct an argument for Islam that can address a non-believer? Because appealing to praise and wisdom and all that is only convincing to people who would already accept the divine origins of those things, whereas seeing praise for a god means absolutely nothing to an unbeliever.

I know it means nothing to an Atheist, but that doesn't praise is not a proof. Praise in human actions is in itself linked to God, so much so that it truly belongs to him, more then it does to us. It has his light mixed in it, begins from him, and is eternally praiseworthy due it being mixed with eternity.

Following a praiseworthy example is nothing but what has been given to our spirits in the origin, when the light of time was mixed with that of eternity.

If you cannot recognize the light within you, that it's a living glory and beauty of God, it doesn't mean it's not there. And it doesn't mean reminding of it is not a proof.

And likewise, manifesting the divine light and higher wisdom, even if people decide not to acknowledge or fail to perceive it, doesn't fail to be a proof.

(April 3, 2015 at 11:13 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I know it means nothing to an Atheist, but that doesn't [mean] praise is not a proof.

(brackets mine)

Uh, yeah, it does. That's kind of the definition of a 'proof'. Saying "my proof works unless you're an atheist" is ridiculous.

(April 3, 2015 at 11:16 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 11:13 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I know it means nothing to an Atheist, but that doesn't [mean] praise is not a proof.

(brackets mine)

Uh, yeah, it does.  That's kind of the definition of a 'proof'.  Saying "my proof works unless you're an atheist" is ridiculous.

So just because you don't acknowledge something it ceases to be a proof?

If I don't acknowledge 1 + 1 = 2, then all of a sudden mathematics is a bunch non proven axioms?

(April 3, 2015 at 11:27 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 11:16 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: (brackets mine)

Uh, yeah, it does.  That's kind of the definition of a 'proof'.  Saying "my proof works unless you're an atheist" is ridiculous.

So just because you don't acknowledge something it ceases to be a proof?

If I don't acknowledge 1 + 1 = 2, then all of a sudden mathematics is a bunch non proven axioms?

No, I don't just reject your "proof" I reject your premises. I don't believe in any supernatural/theistic beings or mechanisms, because they haven't been demonstrated to exist. You can't then use those (undemonstrated) supernatural/theistic ideas to justify your conclusion that the supernatural/theistic source (God) exists.

(April 3, 2015 at 11:30 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 11:27 am)MysticKnight Wrote: So just because you don't acknowledge something it ceases to be a proof?

If I don't acknowledge 1 + 1 = 2, then all of a sudden mathematics is a bunch non proven axioms?

No, I don't just reject your "proof" I reject your premises.  I don't believe in any supernatural/theistic beings or mechanisms, because they haven't been demonstrated to exist.  You can't then use those (undemonstrated) supernatural/theistic ideas to justify your conclusion that the supernatural/theistic source (God) exists.

A person can say, I don't believe in morality, and therefore, would not be doing evil if I rape someone because there is no such thing as evil. There is no way to prove by an argument that morality is binding and to be followed and not a delusion. But it doesn't mean because the person fails to acknowledge it is wrong, that he for example doesn't have a binding proof that rape is wrong within his own conscious.

In the same way, if you deny the divine light and eternal nature of praise, it doesn't mean it's not a binding proof.

You really don't seem to understand my objections. Especially if you're going to use an objective morality analogy as if I'd agree with it.

Your "proof" isn't a proof unless someone already believes in Allah. That is not what a proof is.

(April 3, 2015 at 11:36 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Your "proof" isn't a proof unless someone already believes in Allah.  That is not what a proof is.

That's not true. A non believer can be reminded and see within himself the nature of praise, divine glory, light, greatness, and wisdom from my perspective. Therefore, it's possible to see it, and see the signs of God within ourselves, even if you initially disbelieve.

And denial of praise and it's sacred eternal origin, is not a proof that itself is not a manifest proof.

(April 3, 2015 at 11:41 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 11:36 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Your "proof" isn't a proof unless someone already believes in Allah.  That is not what a proof is.

A non believer can be reminded and see within himself the nature of praise, divine glory, light, greatness, and wisdom from my perspective.

Yeah, I'm done here. You're really not getting it at all.

I understand you don't agree with it, and don't acknowledge it, but all I'm saying is that doesn't prove there is no proof for God or that praise and it's nature is not a proof for God and his greatness.