Proof of God

[downbeatplumb]

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.
  

 

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-

So its true because it says its true.

What utter tosh.