Proof of God

[Harris]

“IF” God exist then in your opinion which is the most accurate definition of God? What you think how God should look like.

"IF" Boobledyboo exists then in your opinion which is the most accurate definition of Boobledyboo?

We know the difference between good and evil solely because of God’s revelation, and not by the exercise of our own reason. God makes the rules and whatever he decrees is just, yet God himself is under no obligation: if he wished, he could punish the righteous and admit the wicked to paradise. God creates in his creature both the power and the choice; then he creates in us the actions, which correspond to these.

We know the difference between good and evil because we have positive and negative emotions about things.  It has nothing to do with Sky Daddy, and your argumentum ad nauseam is getting a little boring.

If there's a God making and enforcing these rules, prove it.  So far you have a lot of blah blah blah and no proof that any of it represents reality.

And some people like Stalin, Mao … and their supporters define good as killing and raping people in millions. These people have positive emotional reaction on their killings and raping. Would you like to adopt their definition of good?

No.  Because good and evil are subjective terms, and my subjective state is different than the state of those people, I will not share their definitions of good or evil, or of morality.

Tell me how many of your daughters were raped brutally. How many of your children were killed? Did someone kicked you out of your house and break it and made a pub, public house, or Disco bar while you are sitting in dust and begging for food and medicine for you and for your family?

If none of these things happened to you then why are you abusing God in place of giving thanks for the luxurious life He bestowed upon you?

If you want to see what is real calamity then only travel in Afghanistan and you will find not a single family who have not lost one or more members of their family (from child to old) because of the killings made by the socialist and secular forces.

Stop proselytizing.

I am firmly holding my position that good and evil have no meanings in the Godless Universe.

Then you need to learn how dictionaries work.

Man’s destiny is organized in a beneficent way, immutably determined by providence; every apparent evil is part of a larger good and is impenetrable to limited human logic and understanding.

Says who, and under what evidence?  Under what definition?  None that anyone who's outgrown fairy tales will recognize.

Please tell why people need Nobel Prize and electric chair. In other words, why people need reward and punishment?

Almost everything you say is based on a false assertion, or an unfounded one.  You insist that the universe must have a beginning, but do not prove this to be so.  You insist that people need reward and punishment, but have neither defined in what sense they "need" these things, or shown this to be so.

Your observable facts have no roots neither scientifically nor philosophically. These facts are hanging in the middle of air without proper origins and evidences.

Look, whatever you say about my facts or interpretation of them, there is no point at which you can demonstrate that Sky Daddy represents a better fit for those facts than theories based purely on inference from what is observed.  It is observed that patterns persist, and that some persist patterns can interact with each other to create new patterns.  It is not observed that Sky Daddy had anything to do with it.

To protect your position you have started picking bits and pieces out of my comments and quoting them out of context to distort their meanings unwisely.

You are conferring meaning and value on an otherwise godless and thus meaningless universe. You may think we human beings are the product of blind evolutionary forces and you may think that we are part of a godless universe but in doing so, you are totally undermining the basic principles, which run the universe.
 
I have argued:
 

• Godless universe can only be understood in terms of Chance, Luck and, Accident. If Universe is not the product of Chance, Luck, and Accident then anything or anyone who is able to create and sustain orderly and intelligible universe is God.
  

 

• Chance, luck, and accident are relative to already existing objects. These are incoherent notions in the absence of everything (i.e. in nothingness).
  

 

• If our minds are the product of chance then chance literally, eradicate the evidence that the person is after all trustworthy.
  

 

• Without God, our minds can only produce chaotic assumptions about the existence of the universe and about existence of our own conscious beings.
  

 
You wrote:
 
“No. Because good and evil are subjective terms, and my subjective state is different than the state of those people, I will not share their definitions of good or evil, or of morality.”
 
The question is can judgments about moral values justifiably lay claim to universal agreement merely on expressions of subjective preferences.
 
It is not possible for the human intellect alone to attain a proper knowledge of the true and the good. For human reason is not capable of comprehending things as they are in reality. There must therefore be something higher than the human intellect by means of which the good can be defined and the truth comprehended so as to leave no doubt. This can be done only through divine guidance. It is incumbent, then, on every person to know that among all laws there is one divine law, which gives this guidance. Only a divine law can take us beyond the objectives of merely utilitarian legislation, which seeks no more than social order and stability, and can open up to us the possibility of our genuine felicity.
 
In secular states, normally political superiors set the laws. These laws have the concepts of commands, duties and sanctions. They lay down some general rule for the guidance of human conduct.
 
If certain wrongdoers become moral agents, the view that they deserve to suffer for their conduct would be undermined. If such wrongdoers escape sufferings for their wrongs in this life, it would be fair if there were another world, a hell, where he would be made to suffer. It would be fair if Stalin (assuming that he was a moral agent) were made to suffer in hell.
 
If moral values are matters of subjective preference that means the base ideology is centred around a specific idea, be it race, class or nation. Such ideology necessarily involves terror a systematic, institutionalized, carefully planned and legally unrestrained use of physical and psychological violence. Good examples are Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pott, and many other similar personals.
 
For Islamic political philosophers, the divine law (sharia) revealed to Prophet Muhammad was a necessary and sufficient condition for bringing about human felicity as these laws are pure and not contaminated by the subjective preferences.
 
For a thinking person these points are sufficient for drawing a conclusion that a person trying to conceal obvious traces of the truth behind chaotic assumptions and empty commentaries that is only to emancipate his immediate self-interested desires.
 
“And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is).”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 42-
 
And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."
Al Israa' (17)
-Verse 81-
 
“Verily We have propounded for men, in this Quran every kind of Parable: But if thou bring to them any Sign, the Unbelievers are sure to say, "Ye do nothing but talk vanities."”
Ar Ruum (30)
-Verse 58-