Making the case for Islam.

[Minimalist]

I thought I saw the word "math" in OP, so far I don't see anything remotely resembling that!

Mathematical knowledge of his Greatness (the Oneness of God is a mathematical principle).



Here.

[LastPoet]

[paulpablo]

Mystic Knight, what I think you should do is just focus on one argument and see how that holds up.

What I'm reading a lot of are subjective opinions being presented as objective facts.

"When we look for signs of god without ourselves"  You're just talking about feelings towards god, or feelings about how people praise god.

I'm not nitpicking, I just want one piece of objective proof if you're going to make a case for something.  Try to not use phrases like "Balance of the cosmos" Or if you do use phrases like that then try and explain what you mean because I don't know what that means.

And I'm not big on philosophy or arguing about what objective proof is, even if you show me something that resembles objective proof will be fine.

[WinterHold]

[WinterHold]

So, he isn't a True Muslim™? You know.... I heard the same story between christians. Disregarding the preach, how do you go about asserting what muslim religion is true? How to find truth when you don't even know what you are looking for?

Well, where is he from the source?
When the main book in Islam is the Quran..but you demand me to follow another book, that came 400 years after the main book, then tell me again: who's the "trurer' Muslim?

I think sticking to the source is the most authentic thing. 
Following what the "Ayatollah"s in Tehran are saying, is a different different thing

[Mystic]

@paulpablo

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.

[paulpablo]

@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.

"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."

1) I don't know if this is true of all atheists.
2) You're wording of this is dishonest in a suggestive way.  You're suggesting that atheists haven't rationally come to the conclusion that morals are what someone thinks morals are, but rather they just WANT to say it.  It's just desirable rather than rational.

It would be more accurate to say that some atheists have reasoned that moral statements are based on what people think rather than what god has told them because they don't believe god exists.

Ok I'll carry on reading now.

[paulpablo]

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 are people with little to no empathy, yet they acknowledge moral facts. 

Ok but as an atheist I would say human empathy is always the basis of moral statements.  I don't know what you mean by moral facts.  

Taking away the assumption that god exists and just looking and what you're saying here from a straightforward, no gods involved perspective I'd say that all you can really honestly say is that people no empathy acknowledge that other people with empathy have moral codes which they live by and they will likely face punishment at some point like prison if they act without empathy all the time towards other people all the time.

[Mystic]

1) I don't know if this is true of all atheists.

I don't believe this is the case for all Atheists. It seems to be the case of most Atheists I've discussed with regarding this issue. But essentially you are right in that I shouldn't be making a general statement out of that. I've only experienced with a limited number of Atheists.

2) You're wording of this is dishonest in a suggestive way.  You're suggesting that atheists haven't rationally come to the conclusion that morals are what someone thinks morals are, but rather they just WANT to say it.  It's just desirable rather than rational.

It would be more accurate to say that some atheists have reasoned that moral statements are based on what people think rather than what god has told them because they don't believe god exists.

Ok I'll carry on reading now.

I don't believe reason has anything to do with disbelieving objective praise or morality, but rather it's arch enemy, desire of the vain type, is the reason.

I truly believe now no one honestly believes in themselves objective praise or morals don't exist at all.

[paulpablo]

1) I don't know if this is true of all atheists.

I don't believe this is the case for all Atheists. It seems to be the case of most Atheists I've discussed with regarding this issue. But essentially you are right in that I shouldn't be making a general statement out of that. I've only experienced with a limited number of Atheists.

2) You're wording of this is dishonest in a suggestive way.  You're suggesting that atheists haven't rationally come to the conclusion that morals are what someone thinks morals are, but rather they just WANT to say it.  It's just desirable rather than rational.

It would be more accurate to say that some atheists have reasoned that moral statements are based on what people think rather than what god has told them because they don't believe god exists.

Ok I'll carry on reading now.

I don't believe reason has anything to do with disbelieving objective praise or morality, but rather it's arch enemy, desire of the vain type, is the reason.

I truly believe now no one honestly believes in themselves objective praise or morals don't exist at all.

Regardless of morals being objective or subjective, I believe that morals come from what people think.  I'm an atheist, I believe that we only have evidence of communication concerning morals from other humans.

Morals could have been communicated to us via aliens, god, weird vague spirit type things, I don't know.  But I have no evidence of those things, I only have evidence of other humans.