[Serious] Time to embrace Islam!

[The Grand Nudger]

I guess I haven’t considered reasonable belief as a category apart from certainty.  I think the point is that belief is chosen and not necessarily based on complete evidence.

You reckon so, eh?  Okay, quick test - stop believing in god.  Just choose that. Doesn't work, does it?

That's because our beliefs aren't chosen regardless of how complete any evidence may be. Neither you nor I are capable of choosing what we do or don't, can or cant believe. Whatever portion of your belief rests on this belief..is flat out garbage. This usually boils down to some silly shit about how this or that thingf..in our failure to believe, aint gods fault/and or our "choosing" to believe is virtue.

Moot point, if it's not a real thing, huh? Even if we imagine a world positively choked with gods..that's still not a thing that human beings can do. That's a pretty amusing place for religious beliefs to be in, false no matter what else we imagine. False even if the god they're leveraged toward is standing in the room with us right now.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Klorophyll,

So, do you have any evidence for god, or...?

Do you have any evidence for Abraham Lincoln?  How can you be certain of anything at all?

Well, let's see.  We have a pretty well corroborated narrative of Lincoln's life. We have letters written to Lincoln from people whose historicity isn't in doubt.  We have letters written by Lincoln to people whose historicity isn't in doubt.  We have contemporaneous, extant newspaper accounts about Lincoln.  We have examples of the original wanted posters about Lincoln's assassin.  His name is mentioned pretty frequently in the Congressional Record of the period.  He is mentioned in the Illinois Militia rolls for the Black Hawk War.  We have contemporaneous, corroborating physical descriptions of him, written by people who both admired him and despised him.

And - this is the kicker - there are more than 100 photographs of Abraham Lincoln.  If you've got any photographs of God, trot 'em out.  You'll make a fortune.

In fact, there is so much evidence for Lincoln as an historical figure that it would be intellectually perverse to deny or even question his existence.  To use the 'evidence for Lincoln' argument as a counter for the 'evidence for God' argument is (no offense) idiotic. 

Boru

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Now there's a thing Boru. Can one capture the image of the divine according to the followers of that particular belief?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

At work.

Now there's a thing Boru. Can one capture the image of the divine according to the followers of that particular belief?

Well, the thread seems to be about Abrahamic beliefs.  Since those people tend to go on and on about the immaterial nature of God, I'd say 'no'.

But even if we didn't have photographs of Lincoln, his historicity wouldn't be in doubt. When it comes to religious figures, the same standard applies.  There are (obviously) no photos of Mohammed or Martin Luther, but no one seriously questions whether these were real people.

Boru

[R00tKiT]

I didn’t ask you how to know god; I asked you if you had evidence. Your book is a book of claims. It cannot also be the evidence.

If you mean by evidence the standard empirical type required by the modern scientific method, then no, there is none, God is by definition immaterial. The key thing to understand that this kind of evidence is not the only way to get truths, there is pure reason and prophetic claims also. And there is the problem of what  your a prioris are, if you think the world is inherently orderly and requires a lawgiver then it shouldn't be difficult to come to the conclusion of the existence of a creator.

In the case of Islam, the book is also the evidence, that's what we were discussing for like 10 pages of the thread. There is a literary challenge made at the time of Muhammad that went unanswerable.

Why is a god with less than absolute properties "unknowable?" What are absolute properties? And how do you know these things?

Since you're asking this kind of questions, I think we should agree first on a definition of the word of the god we're trying to prove.

The false assumptions you're talking about are simply a logical disjunction : you either assume God exists or you don't, there is no third way

The third way is to simply admit that you do not know.

You don't know is the same as you don't assume God exists .. eh?

Well, I'm not sure what this has to do with taking people's word for it when they claim to communicate with god, but alright.

I don't think you really take the time to understand my replies. You asked why would I take the prophet's word for communicating with God, I answered the prophet did more than just claim. He made miracles happen, and since we didn't witness them, the only way to check whether he is a fake or not, is to investigate how reliable are the people who reported the event, thus the theory of Isnad.

Well, you say, "I mean come on," as if it's so obvious, but it is? Is a physical indicator like "fat right hand" in any way, shape, or form the same thing as calling oneself a Buddhist, or Christian, or Muslim? I'd say it certainly isn't. Furthermore, if someone holds 99% of their views to be in line with the Muslim faith, but holds the view that Mohammed doesn't exist, and never existed, and is only a symbol for Muslim faith, does that mean they aren't a Muslim? Even if your answer is yes, we have to ask, is that nearly the same thing as someone who hold 99% of their views to be in line with Buddhist teachings, but then chooses to pray to a divine creator? I'd say it isn't.

You seem to be getting strangely hung up on this point, and I'm not sure why. My only point was that some Buddhists believe in gods and some Buddhists choose to pray to one, divine creator.

It's more than just a point, you're trying to depict religious belief as something too vague to understand. If I believe in 99% of the Buddhist teachings and believe an additional christian creator, then no, I'm not a Buddhist, I am believing in pure salad, and me identifying as such is just nonsense coming out of my mouth. Beliefs should also be coherent and internally consistent, they're not a shopping cart.
And I am still waiting for the name of the Buddhist sect that believes in god.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

 If I believe in 99% of the Buddhist teachings and believe an additional christian creator, then no, I'm not a Buddhist,

Yes, but are you truly a Scotsman?

And I am still waiting for the name of the Buddhist sect that believes in god.

Nichiren would be closest, I think.  It doesn't specifically reject the notion of gods, and seems pretty comfortable with the existence of kami.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

In the case of Islam, the book is also the evidence, that's what we were discussing for like 10 pages of the thread. There is a literary challenge made at the time of Muhammad that went unanswerable.

It's only unanswerable because Muslims refuse to accept the answers

---

 If I believe in 99% of the Buddhist teachings and believe an additional christian creator, then no, I'm not a Buddhist,

Yes you are because there is no explicit conflict

---

I don't think you really take the time to understand my replies. You asked why would I take the prophet's word for communicating with God, I answered the prophet did more than just claim. He made miracles happen, and since we didn't witness them, the only way to check whether he is a fake or not, is to investigate how reliable are the people who reported the event, thus the theory of Isnad.

So claims on top of claims and your theory isn't even a hypothesis

---

If you mean by evidence the standard empirical type required by the modern scientific method, then no, there is none, God is by definition immaterial. The key thing to understand that this kind of evidence is not the only way to get truths, there is pure reason and prophetic claims also. 

The first is debating angels on a pin head the second isn't even a method

---

And there is the problem of what  your a prioris are, if you think the world is inherently orderly and requires a lawgiver then it shouldn't be difficult to come to the conclusion of the existence of a creator.

Nonsense

---

 If I believe in 99% of the Buddhist teachings and believe an additional christian creator, then no, I'm not a Buddhist,

Yes, but are you truly a Scotsman?

And I am still waiting for the name of the Buddhist sect that believes in god.

Nichiren would be closest, I think.  It doesn't specifically reject the notion of gods, and seems pretty comfortable with the existence of kami.

Boru

Considering Christian Buddhists are a thing 

https://www.ncronline.org/news/double-be...tian-faith

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Not even remotely.  If he could know, then we can't choose.  Doesn't matter if it wants to know, or even if it does.  Thing is, free will is not as important a concept to islam as it is to christianity. Islams notion of divine reward is more transactionary in the sense that it's based on a list of acts. Doing the right thing, whether you want to or not...and even if you have to be forced to do so.

[maxolla]

I guess I haven’t considered reasonable belief as a category apart from certainty.  I think the point is that belief is chosen and not necessarily based on complete evidence.

You reckon so, eh?  Okay, quick test - stop believing in god.  Just choose that.  Doesn't work, does it?

That's because our beliefs aren't chosen regardless of how complete any evidence may be.  Neither you nor I are capable of choosing what we do or don't, can or cant believe.  Whatever portion of your belief rests on this belief..is flat out garbage.  This usually boils down to some silly shit about how this or that thingf..in our failure to believe, aint gods fault/and or our "choosing" to believe is virtue.

Moot point, if it's not a real thing, huh?  Even if we imagine a world positively choked with gods..that's still not a thing that human beings can do.  That's a pretty amusing place for religious beliefs to be in, false no matter what else we imagine.  False even if the god they're leveraged toward is standing in the room with us right now.

My belief is more carefully chosen based on logical conclusions.  I have been given two options belief in a deity or disbelief in a deity.  After weighing the evidence I have chosen to belief in its existence.  Yes beliefs are chosen, not randomly but by weighing evidence.

---

Do you have any evidence for Abraham Lincoln?  How can you be certain of anything at all?

Well, let's see.  We have a pretty well corroborated narrative of Lincoln's life. We have letters written to Lincoln from people whose historicity isn't in doubt.  We have letters written by Lincoln to people whose historicity isn't in doubt.  We have contemporaneous, extant newspaper accounts about Lincoln.  We have examples of the original wanted posters about Lincoln's assassin.  His name is mentioned pretty frequently in the Congressional Record of the period.  He is mentioned in the Illinois Militia rolls for the Black Hawk War.  We have contemporaneous, corroborating physical descriptions of him, written by people who both admired him and despised him.

And - this is the kicker - there are more than 100 photographs of Abraham Lincoln.  If you've got any photographs of God, trot 'em out.  You'll make a fortune.

In fact, there is so much evidence for Lincoln as an historical figure that it would be intellectually perverse to deny or even question his existence.  To use the 'evidence for Lincoln' argument as a counter for the 'evidence for God' argument is (no offense) idiotic. 

Boru

Good points.  Do you believe then that Jesus existed? Why?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You reckon so, eh?  Okay, quick test - stop believing in god.  Just choose that.  Doesn't work, does it?

That's because our beliefs aren't chosen regardless of how complete any evidence may be.  Neither you nor I are capable of choosing what we do or don't, can or cant believe.  Whatever portion of your belief rests on this belief..is flat out garbage.  This usually boils down to some silly shit about how this or that thingf..in our failure to believe, aint gods fault/and or our "choosing" to believe is virtue.

Moot point, if it's not a real thing, huh?  Even if we imagine a world positively choked with gods..that's still not a thing that human beings can do.  That's a pretty amusing place for religious beliefs to be in, false no matter what else we imagine.  False even if the god they're leveraged toward is standing in the room with us right now.

My belief is more carefully chosen based on logical conclusions.  I have been given two options belief in a deity or disbelief in a deity.  After weighing the evidence I have chosen to belief in its existence.  Yes beliefs are chosen, not randomly but by weighing evidence.

---

Well, let's see.  We have a pretty well corroborated narrative of Lincoln's life. We have letters written to Lincoln from people whose historicity isn't in doubt.  We have letters written by Lincoln to people whose historicity isn't in doubt.  We have contemporaneous, extant newspaper accounts about Lincoln.  We have examples of the original wanted posters about Lincoln's assassin.  His name is mentioned pretty frequently in the Congressional Record of the period.  He is mentioned in the Illinois Militia rolls for the Black Hawk War.  We have contemporaneous, corroborating physical descriptions of him, written by people who both admired him and despised him.

And - this is the kicker - there are more than 100 photographs of Abraham Lincoln.  If you've got any photographs of God, trot 'em out.  You'll make a fortune.

In fact, there is so much evidence for Lincoln as an historical figure that it would be intellectually perverse to deny or even question his existence.  To use the 'evidence for Lincoln' argument as a counter for the 'evidence for God' argument is (no offense) idiotic. 

Boru

Good points.  Do you believe then that Jesus existed? Why?

I don't, for several reasons:

-There are no contemporaneous mentions of Jesus (please don't bother to list those that you think qualify.  They don't.)

-We have nothing written by Jesus.

-The later accounts of Jesus are internally inconsistent, and inconsistent with each other.

-The miracles attributed to Jesus in those accounts are re-worked versions of miracles from other religions.

-A very good case can be made that Christianity would have proceeded as it did without an historic Jesus.

Boru