If Allah has a plan, what is the point of Dua?

[Brian37]

NO, it did not exist in our consciousness, at least not in the divine comic book way religious people want to believe.

Religion and god claims are a result of gap filling, flawed perceptions. What you talk about existing in our consciousness is our evolved language and evolved awareness. The problem is humans did not have our modern scientific understanding of reality. What evolved was our ability to seek patterns, but at the same time we had no clue how to test and confirm those things we perceived. As a result of our ignorance, we made up answers when we had none. When something scary like a storm or a a volcano affected humans back then, they falsely assumed it was being controled by something human like, but with super powers. Humans were merely anthropomorphic in projecting their own qualities on non existent and non human things.

Our flawed perceptions lead us to gap fill. It is no different than an antelope on the African plane who has no time to assess if the swaying grass is mere wind, or a lion stalking it. It is the same reason that if a kid wants to believe that covered bowl of olives at the Halloween party in a dark kitchen are eyeballs, since thy don't have an adult brain if young enough, they lack the reasoning skills to make any credible determination about what is really going on. 

Humans basically had no understanding of nature, so they invented answers as a way to cope. Unfortunately even to this day, allows power structures to form with people who use those ideas as a way to control them. It isnt that all religious people are bad, it is that most humans don't have a grasp on how good logic works. "Faith" is simply easier for humans than actually testing and falsifying to confirm what they are perceiving.

I counter that with something I always thought about : the design of the universe is unified, and so similar to a degree making the idea of a higher deity logical; that's my personal view of it, though.
I understand you; fear did influence religion through all times -even now-, after all the heathen ideologies which Islam is opposing, are a product of what you mentioned in their essence : a mere "way to cope".

Modern Muslims too, have begun to change their religion as a way to cope. We've seen Muslims changing their faith to "cope" with rough battlefield conditions like in Syria, the extremist wings inside Judaism, Christianity & Islam are also a product of that : coping with the environment. 

But on an ideological level, I believe that most answers were answered at wrong times when knowledge was scarce, but many other answers were a product of an inevitable chain of odds that cannot be ignored. The ancients saw their share, we on the other hand saw a bigger share, and similarities in design began to pop up. The ancients did detect design similarities too.

No,  there is nothing in the Koran that demonstrates any slightest lick of modern scientific understanding of the universe. Neither does the Bible or Jewish texts or Hindu Vedas. I have seen this tactic from every major religion. When they cant debunk science, they try to co opt it and claim it matches there holy writings and club.

Scientific method is not a religion, it is not there to prop up any holy book or any religion. It is completely religion independent and neutral.

[WinterHold]

No,  there is nothing in the Koran that demonstrates any slightest lick of modern scientific understanding of the universe. Neither does the Bible or Jewish texts or Hindu Vedas. I have seen this tactic from every major religion. When they cant debunk science, they try to co opt it and claim it matches there holy writings and club.

Scientific method is not a religion, it is not there to prop up any holy book or any religion. It is completely religion independent and neutral.

Hey, why bite my admiration to science ?  
What I'm saying is that science is actually : leading back to God.

Many scientists already admired and worked under the "law of the universe".
Who made the laws ? intelligent creation is more believable when you, through science, reach a conclusion like that.

[Brian37]

No,  there is nothing in the Koran that demonstrates any slightest lick of modern scientific understanding of the universe. Neither does the Bible or Jewish texts or Hindu Vedas. I have seen this tactic from every major religion. When they cant debunk science, they try to co opt it and claim it matches there holy writings and club.

Scientific method is not a religion, it is not there to prop up any holy book or any religion. It is completely religion independent and neutral.

Hey, why bite my admiration to science ?  
What I'm saying is that science is actually : leading back to God.

Many scientists already admired and worked under the "law of the universe".
Who made the laws ? intelligent creation is more believable when you, through science, reach a conclusion like that.

Way to miss the point. I didn't say it was against the law to like science, I wish more people did. I said it is independent of ALL religions it is not there to prop up any religion. You liking science does not make Allah real anymore than a Jew liking science makes Yahweh real anymore than a Hindu liking science makes Vishnu real.

"law of the universe", see you do the same thing Christians do. "Law" in science does not mean the same thing religious people like it to mean. "Law" is not a government written thing when it is used in the context of science. "Law" as used in science is a description of confirmed and tested observations that are consistent over long term data observation. 

And the "who" part, you make the same mistake too. You assume a cosmic magical "sky who" is some factory owner and we are his products. No, that is now how science views nature. Just like you already accept that Thor is not needed to explain why lightening happens. Just like you already accept you don't need Poseidon to be the cause of hurricanes.

It isn't a who that did all this, it was a non cognitive process, like how the seasons change and we have different weather every day. CONDITONS, not a who, a process, not a thinking being. 

It can be viewed like riding in a giant weather pattern and we are simply a manifestation of those events. The problem you are stuck with that all god claimers are still suffer from "which god", and the problem of infinite regress.

So the simplest solution is to know if you are are right are to ask yourself, not me, but yourself, the following. Which to you seems to be more likely?

1. A god exists?

Or

2. Humans make them up and merely like the idea?

Now you already reject lots of other god claims and I would say rightfully so. You don't buy Thor as being real. You don't buy Vishnu as being real. You don't buy Yahweh as being real, and while you share some of the same characters you dont see Jesus as being the one true way to heaven.

The only difference between you and me, is that I reject one more god claim than you do. When you can aim your own skepticism that you used to reject other god claims, besides your own, at your own claim, then maybe you can see where the atheist is coming from.

[ReptilianPeon]

Several hundred years ago, belief it deities was the most sensible position (namely Deism). Today not so. Religioists all use the same tired arguments, e.g. William Lane-Craig uses the same arguments in a debate to Hamza Tzortis. In fact, Hamza even copies William's gestures (hand movements).

Trouble is, religionist personalities love to ambush unsuspecting people (especially the local Dawah Table) because it makes them look good in front of their worshipers. Maybe I'm being a little harsh with this next part, but: There are lots of people who claim to be Atheists but then aren't exactly prepared when confronted with even the most childish of arguments (I've seen this is in street proselytizing videos). It's like they haven't really thought about the reasons for being an Atheist. And this reinforces confirmation bias in the religionists - especially their lackeys - the doubly ignorant viewers.

I think that all people who claim to be Atheists have a duty to investigate the most common of the generic arguments (those that can be applied to any deity) Theists are likely to utter so that they are prepared when Theists ask them questions (related to religion). Doing so can only be a good think for Atheists in general because they can better educate their critics. I see some people in street 'debates' (a religionist trying to shove as much dogma into a short conversation as possible) who say that they are Atheist and then say all sorts of strange things that make them appear silly. Then again, the religionists don't want to look bad in front of the camera so of course they're only going to share the worst people.

P.S. Sorry for going off on a tangent. I know we're supposed to be discussing free will. Maybe encouraging investigating religionist claims can be a topic for the future.

[Brian37]

There is no way you will ever see an organized attempt at all the world's major religions to build one lab somewhere and get them to agree on one standard method of collecting data or one standard formula or control group to test and falsify to get to the point of proving which god is real. Believers can be scientists, sure, but when they bring their personal beliefs into it and set out to prove that their book and club is the only right one, they are not being objective or neutral. So the common dodge in the pluralistic west is to treat them either as separate but equal, or overlapping. Again, all religions do this.

You will not have for example, a Hindu astrophysicist, a Buddhist astrophysicist, a Jewish astrophysicist, a Christian astrophysicist and a Muslim astrophysicist in a neutral lab telescope observatory conducting an experiment that can prove which club and or god is the only correct one. So unless all of them are correct, and they cant be, then only one got it right or all of them got it wrong and there is no god.

You also wont have a Hindu doctor, a Buddhist doctor, a Jewish doctor, a Christian doctor and a Muslim doctor ever agree which version of "magic miracle" saved someone's life. I'd say if someone survived, they were never dead in the first place. Being in a window and coming back only means a misdiagnosis if the vitals are not found. But  no one has ever survived going beyond that window past cellular death and survived rigor mortis.

So while some people with medical degrees and science degrees do accept science, only up until a certain point when it starts conflicting with their personal beliefs, then they cherry pick just like laypeople, and even then, even with a degree that is not objective.

So when you say "science is pointing to God" well yea, how convenient, and it just so happens to be the one you personally like. But so what, other people of other religions also say science points to their god.

I'd say science points to the evolutionary reason humans gap fill with claims of gods as an anthropomorphic argument from ignorance because they are merely psychologically projecting their own desires and human qualities on non human and non existent things. I'd say God/god/gods are all in your head, nothing more than human imagination.

[popsthebuilder]

I counter that with something I always thought about : the design of the universe is unified, and so similar to a degree making the idea of a higher deity logical; that's my personal view of it, though.
I understand you; fear did influence religion through all times -even now-, after all the heathen ideologies which Islam is opposing, are a product of what you mentioned in their essence : a mere "way to cope".

Modern Muslims too, have begun to change their religion as a way to cope. We've seen Muslims changing their faith to "cope" with rough battlefield conditions like in Syria, the extremist wings inside Judaism, Christianity & Islam are also a product of that : coping with the environment. 

But on an ideological level, I believe that most answers were answered at wrong times when knowledge was scarce, but many other answers were a product of an inevitable chain of odds that cannot be ignored. The ancients saw their share, we on the other hand saw a bigger share, and similarities in design began to pop up. The ancients did detect design similarities too.

No,  there is nothing in the Koran that demonstrates any slightest lick of modern scientific understanding of the universe. Neither does the Bible or Jewish texts or Hindu Vedas. I have seen this tactic from every major religion. When they cant debunk science, they try to co opt it and claim it matches there holy writings and club.

Scientific method is not a religion, it is not there to prop up any holy book or any religion. It is completely religion independent and neutral.

And yet Faith in GOD doesn't refute it at all.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[popsthebuilder]

Hey, why bite my admiration to science ?  
What I'm saying is that science is actually : leading back to God.

Many scientists already admired and worked under the "law of the universe".
Who made the laws ? intelligent creation is more believable when you, through science, reach a conclusion like that.

Way to miss the point. I didn't say it was against the law to like science, I wish more people did. I said it is independent of ALL religions it is not there to prop up any religion. You liking science does not make Allah real anymore than a Jew liking science makes Yahweh real anymore than a Hindu liking science makes Vishnu real.

"law of the universe", see you do the same thing Christians do. "Law" in science does not mean the same thing religious people like it to mean. "Law" is not a government written thing when it is used in the context of science. "Law" as used in science is a description of confirmed and tested observations that are consistent over long term data observation. 

And the "who" part, you make the same mistake too. You assume a cosmic magical "sky who" is some factory owner and we are his products. No, that is now how science views nature. Just like you already accept that Thor is not needed to explain why lightening happens. Just like you already accept you don't need Poseidon to be the cause of hurricanes.

It isn't a who that did all this, it was a non cognitive process, like how the seasons change and we have different weather every day. CONDITONS, not a who, a process, not a thinking being. 

It can be viewed like riding in a giant weather pattern and we are simply a manifestation of those events. The problem you are stuck with that all god claimers are still suffer from "which god", and the problem of infinite regress.

So the simplest solution is to know if you are are right are to ask yourself, not me, but yourself, the following. Which to you seems to be more likely?

1. A god exists?

Or

2. Humans make them up and merely like the idea?

Now you already reject lots of other god claims and I would say rightfully so. You don't buy Thor as being real. You don't buy Vishnu as being real. You don't buy Yahweh as being real, and while you share some of the same characters you dont see Jesus as being the one true way to heaven.

The only difference between you and me, is that I reject one more god claim than you do. When you can aim your own skepticism that you used to reject other god claims, besides your own, at your own claim, then maybe you can see where the atheist is coming from.

I gotta stop you friend;

All the different names for the One Creator GOD that you tried to call off in refutation of the fact of a single creative force are all references to the same One Creator GOD.

Division is based in greed and lust for power. Hence the over focus on names rather than attributes, morals, teachings, life and peace.

What I'm saying is there is only One Creator GOD ultimately. The religions or faiths you named all adhere to that, and man's direction under God, by God's will. They try to anyway, based on scriptures.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[Brian37]

No,  there is nothing in the Koran that demonstrates any slightest lick of modern scientific understanding of the universe. Neither does the Bible or Jewish texts or Hindu Vedas. I have seen this tactic from every major religion. When they cant debunk science, they try to co opt it and claim it matches there holy writings and club.

Scientific method is not a religion, it is not there to prop up any holy book or any religion. It is completely religion independent and neutral.

And yet Faith in GOD doesn't refute it at all.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Being in denial of bad logic does not make you objective, so yes that is what faith does to human thought, it stops you from thinking.

Look in all seriousness, you really don't need to be so formal by ending every post with "Peace". Everyone wants peace. This is not a formal setting. Relax, we can get "heated" but it is just a debate.

[Pat Mustard]

Prayer is a means to keep ones one morals and reasoning right by the will of GOD.

Praying for personal reasons adverse to the will of God isn't what prayer is for.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Spouting your bullshit ad nauseum only makes it more bullshitty not less. Also you'll get more unity from the contens of my arse than all the faiths put together.

[popsthebuilder]

Prayer is a means to keep ones one morals and reasoning right by the will of GOD.

Praying for personal reasons adverse to the will of God isn't what prayer is for.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Spouting your bullshit ad nauseum only makes it more bullshitty not less. Also you'll get more unity from the contens of my arse than all the faiths put together.

Wait and see. I will wait with you.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.