Making the case for Islam.

[WinterHold]

@paulplabo

I think I've discussed the issue of value/praise/morality in a way in the past threads and over the years, that it is linked to God and that God it's ultimate source and basis. 

Ultimately, I don't mind going through these discussions again. 

The problem is that Atheists want to say that moral statements are neither true or false but rather they are simply what a person thinks. Praise statements are also neither true or false.

But logic dictates that all statements are either true or false. A statement like "chocolate tastes better then in vanilla" is not true, because it's not a universally objective. It is not true in all cases. There exists a case in which to a person, vanilla tastes better. The statement "vanilla tastes better then chocolate" is also false.

However is the same true of moral statements as far as humans go? Can we say it's wrong for a human to torture another human for simply pleasure? I hope we can say that much. Empathy doesn't necessarily have to be the basis, there is people with little to no empathy, yet they acknowledge moral facts. 

That is not to say empathy is not important. But what I'm saying, are there moral facts. Are there even general moral facts.  Even if they aren't universal, are there objective more facts regarding people. For example, what color I chose to like the most there perhaps is no should, but it's rather up to me. But is the same true of praise? Can I simply decide what is praiseworthy or what is not? Can society simply decide that for me as well?

If I can't simply decide, why can mutations that survived from evolution, decide that for me? What authority do they have to dictate me what I should do or what is better for me to do?

At the end of the day, we cannot even value an act without belief in that there is some value to the person we are praising for that action and state of being.   But as discussed before in other threads, we cannot decide what a value of ourselves or others are. It's like looking at the moon, I can estimate it's size, but at the end, that doesn't make it's size. I can not estimate it's size but believe it's something, but that won't define it either. Yet when it comes to value of the humans, it's not such that it simply exists in space or 3d, it's a something that is experienced with perception.

We require an objective perception to who we are to have objective value. But we aren't that impartial judge nor have that perception. At the same time, if we make it the case that we don't have value, we simply believe we do, or we make one according to our standards, then it's really a delusion. It has no basis, we believe there is an objective value to people even if we don't know there is.

Now all this doesn't prove God because I haven't proved that we are justified in believing in value or praise. However, I feel like it's obvious and it's even in your every day language, that praise propositional facts exist. 


Value propositional statements are often true or false, in that they apply generally to humans, even though a few exceptions can exist.

You guys acknowledge praise and it's objectivity all the time. But whenever God is proven by it,  then it is attacked and said to be purely subjective.

Another tower of words

[Mystic]

At the end of the day, we cannot even value an act without belief in that there is some value to the person we are praising for that action and state of being.   But as discussed before in other threads, we cannot decide what a value of ourselves or others are. It's like looking at the moon, I can estimate it's size, but at the end, that doesn't make it's size. I can not estimate it's size but believe it's something, but that won't define it either. Yet when it comes to value of the humans, it's not such that it simply exists in space or 3d, it's a something that is experienced with perception.

We require an objective perception to who we are to have objective value. But we aren't that impartial judge nor have that perception. At the same time, if we make it the case that we don't have value, we simply believe we do, or we make one according to our standards, then it's really a delusion. It has no basis, we believe there is an objective value to people even if we don't know there is.

My problem with discussions is people usually don't look at the whole argument or the central argument, but look at the phrases leading up to it, and respond to that. 
I think I have a lot patience in that I repeat the same things over and over again, in different ways, but people still don't address the crux of the argument.
 
Ok you believe morals is what humans think and have nothing to do with God because you have no evidence for God. What does this have to do with the argument I showed?

[WinterHold]

My problem with discussions is people usually don't look at the whole argument or the central argument, but look at the phrases leading up to it, and respond to that. 
I think I have a lot patience in that I repeat the same things over and over again, in different ways, but people still don't address the crux of the argument.

When you post towers of words,blocks after blocks to say something that was said 5000 time by others through a century or so, then expect this reaction.

And yeah..you are tired because you cannot finish phase 1, to get into phase 2.

Phase 1: smoothing me up; like a good missionary
Phase 2: preach the faith you believe in, and that is asking me to become a servant of your beloved 12 imams.

meh

[paulpablo]

If I can't simply decide, why can mutations that survived from evolution, decide that for me? What authority do they have to dictate me what I should do or what is better for me to do?

At the end of the day, we cannot even value an act without belief in that there is some value to the person we are praising for that action and state of being.   

Mutations that survived from evolution have authority to tell you what you should that is better for you because many are more intelligent, more experienced and more wise than you.  But unless it's in some form of self defense I don't necessarily totally believe it's justified for someone to dictate on someone else what they should do with threats of aggression. 

You're talking about humans I'm guessing?  When you say mutations.

You say you can't see value in a person who's actions you don't see as being valuable themselves.  Ok that's true enough.  If you want to go on a diet you don't follow the guy who's 5 ft tall who weighs 400 pounds and tells you to eat cheese all day.

[paulpablo]

At the end of the day, we cannot even value an act without belief in that there is some value to the person we are praising for that action and state of being.   But as discussed before in other threads, we cannot decide what a value of ourselves or others are. It's like looking at the moon, I can estimate it's size, but at the end, that doesn't make it's size. I can not estimate it's size but believe it's something, but that won't define it either. Yet when it comes to value of the humans, it's not such that it simply exists in space or 3d, it's a something that is experienced with perception.

We require an objective perception to who we are to have objective value. But we aren't that impartial judge nor have that perception. At the same time, if we make it the case that we don't have value, we simply believe we do, or we make one according to our standards, then it's really a delusion. It has no basis, we believe there is an objective value to people even if we don't know there is.

My problem with discussions is people usually don't look at the whole argument or the central argument, but look at the phrases leading up to it, and respond to that. 
I think I have a lot patience in that I repeat the same things over and over again, in different ways, but people still don't address the crux of the argument.
 
Ok you believe morals is what humans think and have nothing to do with God because you have no evidence for God. What does this have to do with the argument I showed?

You said atheists want to say that morals are what people think.

I said I think many atheists have actually reasoned this to be true rather than they just want to say it's true.

You then said that you think it's unreasonable to not believe in objective morals.

I then said that regardless of the morals being objective or not I have reasoned that morals come from what people think, or empathy.  Because I have no evidence of god, ghosts, spirits or aliens giving us information about morals, only other humans.

And that's where we were up to.

I haven't argued against any main argument yet because I haven't seen one.

I'm just making an objection to how you worded the phrase "Atheists want to say....." I just found it dishonest, generalizing and suggestive that atheists don't make reasonable statements, these statements are made because they want to say them.

[paulpablo]

Ok, I've read through the argument, it seems to basically be another "Morals exist=god exists." statement.

You even say halfway through that it doesn't prove god exists.  If your case doesn't even prove god exists to begin with then it isn't a very promising case for Islam, which means submission to god.

You have to have strong proof of the being existing before you can make a case for submission to this being.

[Mystic]

It's my belief that these sort of statements are stated purely out of desires straying off from reason. I don't believe reason has anything to do with thinking morals are simply what we think rather than having a reality which they are based upon. Praise, value, morals, these all point to some light, some cosmic force of balance, that guides us. The light is God. Of course God is beyond the light in creation, but he is the light of the light.

I believe dark ignorance ignited by desires or simply not caring enough for God and his beauty, is the reason for ignorance of God. Love of debating is also not good if it's intended to refute people rather then come to the truth.

I think there are clear proofs of the guidance as well. And everything becomes easy once we become humbles seekers of beautiful wisdom and in love with what we should be in love with.

When we are inclining to evil, deception, and want to elude ourselves of praise that is not praise, then everything becomes hard.

One day you will have to wake up and pick out the sword of God from all other swords. It's then when you see and acknowledge the light of truthfulness and it's link to the ultimate truth. It's when you let the sword of God embrace you that one truly submits to God.

Till then it's all trickery. Even acts of goodness that seem good or acts of praise or empathy or mercy, can be deceptive and veils of darkness, without that sincere awakening.

The Quran till will mostly remain unclear. I'm trying to make a case for it, but really, the Quran speaks to the heart mainly, and it appeals to the heart to discipline the mind in the way it's meant to be used.

It's been a journey. I remember when the book seemed dark and confusing, and full of empty conjecture and rhetoric that didn't make sense. It's been a journey from then.

The more you reflect over things, the more the Quran opens up. For example, study the issue of power (in political science) and you will see Quran has a deep theme about the issue. Power and authority in society.

I am not interested in hanging on to the praise/moral issue. I've discussed in many times. This why I started in this thread simply summarizing and not getting into that debate.

This thread is mainly about what follows from that. Once we acknowledge God and his praise, how can we find the true religion? I believe that Quran appeals to reason and seeks to awaken people to the religion he has chosen for humanity. Clear proofs of the guidance.

I making the case for it. Praise is linked to God and God is it's continuous source and maintiner. That is a fact. It's not a subjective feeling of people, it's a reality. There is no other possibility even possible and there is no other reality but that.

We aren't the judge of ourselves or what value we have, there is rather a perception that maintains who we are objectively that can only explained from ultimate seeing one and ultimate hearing one who sees things as they truly are.

[ReptilianPeon]

The Wikipedia article lists Quran verses related to the ninety-nine supposed names of Aljah and some have more support than others.  What I don't understand is why some are duplicates or are made redundant by others. I mentioned other previously, but you also have Al-Hadi (the guide) which is basically the same as Ar-Rashid (The Guide to the Right Path).

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

I pick one at random I'm not sure how that Quran verse relates to that name (this the only verse that related to A-Fattah):

Al-Fattah is supposedly supported by (only) Quran 34:26

"Say: "Our Lord will gather us together and will in the end decide the matter between us (and you) in truth and justice: and He is the one to decide, the One Who knows all.""

Where in that verse is the name of Allah? I don't see any names there. Shouldn't it say "The Victory Giver". Am I missing something?

I also notice name Al-Wahhab and I think that's curious. So Abdul Wahaab is named after one of the names of Allah?

In Saudi Arabia, you can't believe the amounts of money the natives pay for certain "blessed,knowledgabla sheikhs" who work as "demon busters" and fight "black magic". Sunnah are so messed up indeed; all Muslims are TBH xD

It's like people and their fortune tellers. The supposed psychic mediums are good at judging behavior and only speak with vague language. They aren't in contact with "spirits".

Parents probably convince their children they are possessed by Jinn if they are too rebellious. Then you have to go and see the crazy Sheikh. e.g.

Parents, church members beat teen to death, injured brother while trying to get them to ‘confess sins’ at N.Y. church: cops

[Spinchance]

Islam will never have a case, it is not the word of any God.

The Quran, Islam, cannot be true because it was Mohammed who introduced the Quran to this world. 
Islam was spread by the sword. 

Forced conversions and Jihad are void of Divine reason and as such they are against God's nature. 
God has interacted with us through the "Logos"* and Logos means Reason and Word, not sword. 

The sword is simply not part of God's sunnah.

[Brian37]

At the end of the day, we cannot even value an act without belief in that there is some value to the person we are praising for that action and state of being.   But as discussed before in other threads, we cannot decide what a value of ourselves or others are. It's like looking at the moon, I can estimate it's size, but at the end, that doesn't make it's size. I can not estimate it's size but believe it's something, but that won't define it either. Yet when it comes to value of the humans, it's not such that it simply exists in space or 3d, it's a something that is experienced with perception.

We require an objective perception to who we are to have objective value. But we aren't that impartial judge nor have that perception. At the same time, if we make it the case that we don't have value, we simply believe we do, or we make one according to our standards, then it's really a delusion. It has no basis, we believe there is an objective value to people even if we don't know there is.

My problem with discussions is people usually don't look at the whole argument or the central argument, but look at the phrases leading up to it, and respond to that. 
I think I have a lot patience in that I repeat the same things over and over again, in different ways, but people still don't address the crux of the argument.
 
Ok you believe morals is what humans think and have nothing to do with God because you have no evidence for God. What does this have to do with the argument I showed?

No Mystic, the problem is not us, the problem is you. The problem is your failure to see the reality that you are not being objective, you are merely arguing from appeal to emotion and appeal to tradition. This is what all religions do, not just you and not just with the Quran. Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists also argue their writings explain everything. You are merely stuck on a story you bought because it appeals to you. You want to believe what you argue is unique and the truth, but it isn't. 

You can go on Youtube and literally find countless videos of other mammals such as dogs and cats and chimps and elephants and dolphins showing empathy for family and even other species. Our species behaviors, both good and bad are in our evolution, not any old religion or book of myth. It was understandable in antiquity that humans made bad guesses and ended up with Hinduism and Buddhism and Christianity and Jewish and Islam, just like the Egyptian polytheistic gods were never real, nor were the Greek and Roman polytheistic gods.

You don't need religion or a god belief to do good or be good. There is no cosmic sky hero helping us. Humans are all we have.