[Serious] Time to embrace Islam!

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Uhm.... I'd just like to point out that your comment of;

"Any belief in more than one supreme diety can be proven to be impossible logically. If more than one deity exists, then they cannot exceed each other's will. Hence none of them are deities. "

Just because mulitple entities cannot exceed their respective 'Needs'/'Wants'/'Wills'/'What have you' doesn't negate their supposed existence.

There are multiple humans on the planet, none of whom can 'Exceed each other's will' and yet they all exist.

Another thing would be that a diety need not be 'Omnipotent' to still qualify as a diety.

A diety simply needs to be able to bend reality to its whim (Let alone 'Will'). With different levels of reality changing determining its 'Dietyness'.

As an example. Neo of 'The Matrix' would easily match the description of a 'Diety' as they have the ability to reshape the nature of 'The Matrix' in which their mind and 'Will' can operate.

Cheers.

[R00tKiT]

So, you know that these gods don't exist? How can you prove that? Also, how do you know that god is supposed to be immortal? How do you know there's only one god?

Mortals are by definiton not gods. I think we should agree on a definition of god to clarify these points.
If a god is mortal then we can simply ask how come this god came to exist over and over, and we get to infinite regress which leads us to a dead end.
There must be one omnipotent god because as I said multiple gods cannot exceed each other's will. More than one gods with some desired attributes is a logical impossibility.

To be fair, it was inaccurate of me to use the words "divine creator." Rather, there are many sects of Buddhism that adhere to the concept of an "adibuddha," or a 'primordial Buddha,' that came before humans, and represents the entirety of the universe. So, I suppose I should've worded it a bit differently - that's my mistake. The 14th (current) Dalai Lama has even talked about this concept in the Mahayana tradition. So, while this may not satisfy what your definition of god is, I still ask, Who cares? Who says I should take your word for what god is supposed to be, as opposed to taking the Dalai Lamas word? Certainly he's a lot more credible than you, no?

Any concept of god should at least be expected to answer problems like infinite regress, why there is something instead of nothing, etc. A mortal god is as good as anything out there, and thus isn't interesting to look for a proof of his existence.
One can think of it like this : let's look for the god with the most complete attributes before moving to the more vulnerable and mortal version of god.

Not to mention, a belief in a personal god doesn't necessarily disqualify one from being a buddhist. A quick search through the Buddhism subreddit will show you there are plenty of Buddhists who still believe in the Christian god and pray to that god, while practicing their Buddhist traditions.

If they belive in the Christian god then they are christians, plain and simple. The beliefs you desribe are extremely personal and not of any academic interest, and certainly not ones to be taken seriously by someone who is really sincere about finding truth

Says who? How do you know this? How is more than one god logically impossible? Who says they all have to be omnipotent? Also, an impersonal god sounds a lot more just to me. At least the impersonal god doesn't give a flying fuck if humans die, and is honest about that. The personal god cares about humans (supposedly) and still lets five year old kids get bone cancer. Way to go, god. What a joke.

Also, you never answered my question: How does Islam solve the problem of evil?

I know this because otherewise there is a logical impossibility (a god who cannot exceed the other god's will, therefore this god is not omnipotent, therefore he's not the omnipotent god we're looking for).

The impersonal god isn't just then by your own words, we should expect God to at least make up for the injustice in this world and make an afterlife. 

Islam solves the problem of evil by not supposing that God is omnibenevolent, love is for those who earn it i.e. those who follow his path sincerely, and not all of his creatures.

---

Just because mulitple entities cannot exceed their respective 'Needs'/'Wants'/'Wills'/'What have you' doesn't negate their supposed existence.

There are multiple humans on the planet, none of whom can 'Exceed each other's will' and yet they all exist.

Another thing would be that a diety need not be 'Omnipotent' to still qualify as a diety.

A diety simply needs to be able to bend reality to its whim (Let alone 'Will'). With different levels of reality changing determining its 'Dietyness'.

As an example. Neo of 'The Matrix' would easily match the description of a 'Diety' as they have the ability to reshape the nature of 'The Matrix' in which their mind and 'Will' can operate.

Cheers.

If you drop omnipotence the concept of a deity becomes too vague, and this deity is certanly not one who tried to reach out to us, unlike the Abrahamic God about whom there are at least some candidate holy books we should investigate.

[WinterHold]

But most heathen religions present immortal Gods; even the ancient Greek religion..Zues is immortal according to their belief:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus

Are you a Muslim ? I expect you to be on my side and drop the challenging tone.
Greek religions are not our subject here, please avoid bringing up all kinds of beliefs just to write an answer.

No. Greek religion was given as an example to validate your post.
So please stick to that. You claimed something, I called it out with an example. In other words; your post fails when we compare it to a tiny bit of real beliefs.

I have to question your sources because Buddhism does indeed allow for the belief in God; but it should remain personal and never destroy the main goals of a Buddhist or AKA:

I am not the one claiming Buddhism allows belief in God, read my replies carefully please.

Huh?

Klorophyll says:
Buddhism and Jainism reject any supernatural creator, therefore they won't be a significant upgrade over nonbelief.

Are you following? You said it "rejects". I said it "allows"........

......

It's made more explicit here :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_in_Buddhism

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_in_Buddhism][/url]
No it's not explicit, it is very implicit because here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions...ance.shtml

• There is no belief in a personal God. It is not centred on the relationship between humanity and God
  
• Buddhists believe that nothing is fixed or permanent - change is always possible
  

You can believe in God and be a Buddhists at the same time. But Buddhism doesn't say God exists.

So again...what were you reading, exactly?

[EgoDeath]

Mortals are by definiton not gods. I think we should agree on a definition of god to clarify these points.
If a god is mortal then we can simply ask how come this god came to exist over and over, and we get to infinite regress which leads us to a dead end.
There must be one omnipotent god because as I said multiple gods cannot exceed each other's will. More than one gods with some desired attributes is a logical impossibility.

Well, how do you know what qualities god possesses? Also, I can ask, what created your god as much as you can ask what created the other gods of Buddhism.

Any concept of god should at least be expected to answer problems like infinite regress, why there is something instead of nothing, etc. A mortal god is as good as anything out there, and thus isn't interesting to look for a proof of his existence.
One can think of it like this : let's look for the god with the most complete attributes before moving to the more vulnerable and mortal version of god.

Okay, so far you've claimed: god is immortal and solves the problem of the infinite regress.

How do you know these things to be true and how can you demonstrate them to be true?

If they belive in the Christian god then they are christians, plain and simple. The beliefs you desribe are extremely personal and not of any academic interest, and certainly not ones to be taken seriously by someone who is really sincere about finding truth

And yet, they identify as Buddhists. Some people call themselves Jews but are Jews only by tradition, and don't actually believe in god. Who are you to say that they are not actually Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim, or anything else?

I know this because otherewise there is a logical impossibility (a god who cannot exceed the other god's will, therefore this god is not omnipotent, therefore he's not the omnipotent god we're looking for).

The impersonal god isn't just then by your own words, we should expect God to at least make up for the injustice in this world and make an afterlife. 

Islam solves the problem of evil by not supposing that God is omnibenevolent, love is for those who earn it i.e. those who follow his path sincerely, and not all of his creatures.

So, just to follow your simple logic, if your god is omnipotent, why doesn't it just rid the world of evil with a metaphorical snap of the finger? How does your god answer to five year old children with bone cancer? Did they not earn your god's love?

[Peebothuhlu]

Just because mulitple entities cannot exceed their respective 'Needs'/'Wants'/'Wills'/'What have you' doesn't negate their supposed existence.

There are multiple humans on the planet, none of whom can 'Exceed each other's will' and yet they all exist.

Another thing would be that a diety need not be 'Omnipotent' to still qualify as a diety.

A diety simply needs to be able to bend reality to its whim (Let alone 'Will'). With different levels of reality changing determining its 'Dietyness'.

As an example. Neo of 'The Matrix' would easily match the description of a 'Diety' as they have the ability to reshape the nature of 'The Matrix' in which their mind and 'Will' can operate.

Cheers.

If you drop omnipotence the concept of a deity becomes too vague, and this deity is certanly not one who tried to reach out to us, unlike the Abrahamic God about whom there are at least some candidate holy books we should investigate.

Oh? I thought my definition, and even an example, were anything but vague and quite cogent.

Zeus and Odin most definately 'tried to reach' their followers. There are many an epic tale depicting just such things/events.

Why should your assertion of 'Omnipotence' be heeded?

What about the concept of 'Omnipotence' makes it even a viable thing?

Cheers.

Not at work.

[The Grand Nudger]

There have been mortal gods, none answer the question of infinite regress, IDK why you expect them to deal with injustice, and only a few create afterlives.

You're just describing the way that you like gods to be. It's not surprising that you end up believing in the kind of god you prefer.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Mortals are by definiton not gods. I think we should agree on a definition of god to clarify these points.
If a god is mortal then we can simply ask how come this god came to exist over and over, and we get to infinite regress which leads us to a dead end.
There must be one omnipotent god because as I said multiple gods cannot exceed each other's will. More than one gods with some desired attributes is a logical impossibility.

Well, how do you know what qualities god possesses? Also, I can ask, what created your god as much as you can ask what created the other gods of Buddhism.

Any concept of god should at least be expected to answer problems like infinite regress, why there is something instead of nothing, etc. A mortal god is as good as anything out there, and thus isn't interesting to look for a proof of his existence.
One can think of it like this : let's look for the god with the most complete attributes before moving to the more vulnerable and mortal version of god.

Okay, so far you've claimed: god is immortal and solves the problem of the infinite regress.

How do you know these things to be true and how can you demonstrate them to be true?

If they belive in the Christian god then they are christians, plain and simple. The beliefs you desribe are extremely personal and not of any academic interest, and certainly not ones to be taken seriously by someone who is really sincere about finding truth

And yet, they identify as Buddhists. Some people call themselves Jews but are Jews only by tradition, and don't actually believe in god. Who are you to say that they are not actually Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim, or anything else?

I know this because otherewise there is a logical impossibility (a god who cannot exceed the other god's will, therefore this god is not omnipotent, therefore he's not the omnipotent god we're looking for).

The impersonal god isn't just then by your own words, we should expect God to at least make up for the injustice in this world and make an afterlife. 

Islam solves the problem of evil by not supposing that God is omnibenevolent, love is for those who earn it i.e. those who follow his path sincerely, and not all of his creatures.

So, just to follow your simple logic, if your god is omnipotent, why doesn't it just rid the world of evil with a metaphorical snap of the finger? How does your god answer to five year old children with bone cancer? Did they not earn your god's love?

Lol i love his answer to evil is that his god allows evil and is the author of evil  when he could stop it and somehow making up for it when your dead is just . The rest of his standards are arbitrary or circular .

---

There have been mortal gods, none answer the question of infinite regress, IDK why you expect them to deal with injustice, and only a few create afterlives.

You're just describing the way that you like gods to be.  It's not surprising that you end up believing in the kind of god you prefer.

Indeed an unjust good or even an perfectly evil god can exist .It's still a god and what god owns anyone an afterlife . It's hilarious that he keeps insisting other religions meet his presuppositions to be valid .As if they make his religion anymore true .

---

At work.

Uhm.... I'd just like to point out that your comment of;

"Any belief in more than one supreme diety can be proven to be impossible logically. If more than one deity exists, then they cannot exceed each other's will. Hence none of them are deities. "

Just because mulitple entities cannot exceed their respective 'Needs'/'Wants'/'Wills'/'What have you' doesn't negate their supposed existence.

There are multiple humans on the planet, none of whom can 'Exceed each other's will' and yet they all exist.

Another thing would be that a diety need not be 'Omnipotent' to still qualify as a diety.

A diety simply needs to be able to bend reality to its whim (Let alone 'Will'). With different levels of reality changing determining its 'Dietyness'.

As an example. Neo of 'The Matrix' would easily match the description of a 'Diety' as they have the ability to reshape the nature of 'The Matrix' in which their mind and 'Will' can operate.

Cheers.

Note nothing in his response actually answers your questions .He simply tosses out his arbitrary standards then expects us to think them reasonable .

[EgoDeath]

There have been mortal gods, none answer the question of infinite regress, IDK why you expect them to deal with injustice, and only a few create afterlives.

You're just describing the way that you like gods to be. It's not surprising that you end up believing in the kind of god you prefer.

I'd also bet my next paycheck that the individual in question is from a part of the world that is traditionally Muslim, or comes from a family that is Muslim. Imagine that!

Lol i love his answer to evil is that his god allows evil and is the author of evil  when he could stop it and somehow making up for it when your dead is just . The rest of his standards are arbitrary or circular .

It's no surprise; we've heard these arguments time and time again here on the forum and I've heard them myself for years and years on end. Every theist loves to say that god is impervious to the infinite regress, but interestingly enough, they never explain how or why. The Muslim user here also never explained how Islam solves the problem of evil; he simply spouted off about "omnibenevolence" and says that because god somehow also causes evil, that solves the problem of evil, but it doesn't.

[R00tKiT]

Well, how do you know what qualities god possesses?

The only qualities I can know are those that god allowed me to know. And for that there is no way around scripture.

To avoid any circularity let me clarify the whole thing like this:

(1) If one assumes a God exists with some desirable properties, which include justness, then necessarily God gave us the way to know him to some extent and what he expects us to do in this life, the only thing one can think of that matches that is scripture. Next step is then to investigate good 'candidate' scriptures.

If God didn't give us any clear way at all in this life, then he necessarily possesses negative properties (namely: absolutely uncaring and unjust). And inquiry about his existence is meaningless since nothing changes by us knowing whether he exists or not.

(2) If one doesn't assume God exists, then he should investigate how truthful are the people who claim to communicate with him. The truth of one claim is then proof of both God's existence (which the religious claims usually entail) and the truth of the particular religion.

Okay, so far you've claimed: god is immortal and solves the problem of the infinite regress.

How do you know these things to be true and how can you demonstrate them to be true?

As I clarified above it depends on one's position about God's existence. If one is absolutely agnostic about the question the most natural way is to read about the prophets' claims and what evidence did they present without the need of checking standard proofs like the Kalam argument, the teleological, ontological, etc.

These proofs are constantly refined to address the constant holes found, but if God exists it shouldn't be that difficult to find out about it, leaving the prophets as the only plausible proof.

And yet, they identify as Buddhists. Some people call themselves Jews but are Jews only by tradition, and don't actually believe in god. Who are you to say that they are not actually Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim, or anything else?

That they identify as Buddhists is an opinion of theirs. If one is a true Buddhist he should adhere at least to the core ideas, which obviously don't include the christian God. If one claims he's a Muslm but doesn't acknowledge Muhammad's prophecy then there is something wrong with his claim, he is either lying or is terribly misinformed about the system of belief he's adhering to.

So, just to follow your simple logic, if your god is omnipotent, why doesn't it just rid the world of evil with a metaphorical snap of the finger? How does your god answer to five year old children with bone cancer? Did they not earn your god's love?

The answer I give of course doesn't answer all the cases one can think of about evil, there is like a whole literature on theodicy. But it does address the fundamental problem with christianity : God will punish some poeple with eternity in hell while he loves them. In this form the problem is simply unanswerable, some assumption is not correct or the deity doesn't exist.
Omnibenevolence is actually nonsensical, love and caring entail elements of human affection which can't be extended to a creator.

The famous objection of bone cancer in children is a good example of that, we cannot stand as humans a newborn suffering an incurable disease, from our perspective it's extremely unsettling, but again any level of suffering for any finite length of time is (if a just deity exists) entirely canceled out by an eternity of heavenly existence.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm interested in whether the version of Allah the OP believes in has perfect and complete omniscience. I've run across the idea among Muslims that Allah does not know absolutely everything, that he chooses to limit his omniscience in order to allow for free will, but can know anything he wants to know. If Allah is not omniscient but 'superniscient', his knowledge becomes a part of his omniscience, he knows everything that he wants to know, and the paradox of having free will in the company of omniscience and omnipotence is resolved.