A good argument for God's existence (long but worth it)

[bennyboy]

I'm not sure it's a case of "stopping doubt." I don't feel that I'm resisting. The truth is I go about my day, do my work, feed my family, play some games online when I have time, and so on. Then I come here to see if anyone's saying anything interesting enough for me to merit sharpening my linguistic teeth. It's a hobby.

At no point in this, and with exposure to any of the religious members' ideas here, do I feel internal or cognitive struggle. Generally speaking, I do have great struggle comprehending reality, the nature of mind, and the Universe, and I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility of a deity or even something I would call God. I'd say I'm relatively fertile soil for a really compelling religious idea-- but so far, it just seems like people making stuff up, and I can do that all on my own.

[WinterHold]

You know, the worst habit of all, is "the purifying of the self", thinking that you are so much better than everybody else, and holding the "true" and "correct" view.
Who lied to you and told you that? 

And didn't you say that you're not going to the these "forums" again?

https://atheistforums.org/thread-48740.html



Or was it a part of your "seeds of fury"?

https://atheistforums.org/thread-48253-p...pid1528379

Atlass, as our only other active Muslim, yea we all knew he said that, but I don't want him to leave. I think it is good for the west to see disagreements between Muslims just like I think it is good for Christians to see disagreements between atheists. I think he needed to leave because something in his life was stressing him out, and he didn't need more stress here. He may have meant it at the time sure. But I would prefer him to come back and try to argue here, than to get sucked into something horrible, like ISIS. 

Yes even you question him as well as we do, but his coming back after saying he wouldn't should be the least of our worries. I think he merely is still trying to find his place in the world. I have problems with your arguments as well, but as everyone knows, Catholic Lady and A-Theist also catch crap from me. 

You are both safe here even though we can be blunt with our words. MK annoys me mostly because he sounds like I did pining after a cheer leader in Highschool. But I don't want him gone, or arrested or dead anymore than I want that for you. But logic wise yes, I do pull my hair out. Point being does not matter that he said he wouldn't come back but did. What matters is that we know by him doing this, he didn't go completely off the deep end.

My problem was always about what the religion he preaches actually says.
Eventually the step that follows is paying allegiance to a Bedwin clan that died 1400 years ago. That is what Shiite faith is all about: love of Ali:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ndson.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...shura.html

Lying about this is a virtue in the Shiite faith:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya#Twelver_Shia_view

Syria was destroyed because of Shiite Jihadists mainly. It wasn't ISIS alone; ISIS and Shiites together turned the place into oblivion.
The barbaric shadow of both Sunnies and Shiites did turn the Middle East into a living hell. I'm just sick of the blood; that's why you find me posting against any Shiite or any Sunni.

It's so grim. Like a hammer and a sickle.
And if you talk in public; you either get a Sunni knife, or a Shiite rope to the neck.

I would respect him a lot if he began to tell others about the shitty smell Muslims produced till now. But how do I know he is not using the Taqyiia laws?
The Middle East is literally, and I mean literally, a static toilet. From death to robbery of rights, and all this was defended by his religion. See Iran.
Let's not forget Sunnies and Saudi Arabia.

But you're right. It's better for him to spend his time here; rather than Jihadi undergrounds. And it's healthy for people to see the difference in POVs between others.

[GUBU]

What's up LFC?

She's just been told she's been turned into James Earl Jones.

[LadyForCamus]

Noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

Scared of light? *smiles*

No.  I just find your inability to form a rational argument exhausting.

---

---

By/through the name of God....(all/the) praise is to God...
Why does it refute the argument of evil? The argument of evil seeks to impose an ideal image of what God should be and do with respect to his actions, which ultimately, would best reflect benign wisdom and loving grace. Or it says, that if God was anywhere near goodness, he would not allow evil to exist or not allow suffering to the extent he has allowed. This verse is saying something that must be true if God exists. That it is through God's Name that we would properly praise God, or else that we would not attribute all praise to him.

Okay, let's unpack this. First all of the above could be deleted without affecting your argument at all. Your actual attempt to present an argument seems to begin below.

The name of God is obviously connected to God, so it makes no sense to say "the name of God" points to this concept, that the name of God somehow exists, and properly manifests what an ultimate being would be to a degree, that we have a reference to what an ultimate being would be, but that no such being exists.

Yeah, it would be like someone saying Darth Vader or Superman aren't real. The name of Superman is obviously connected to Superman, so it makes no sense to say 'the name Superman' points to his concept, that we have reference to a being that doesn't exist. It just doesn't make sense, so Superman must be real.

It is insane to think we would know what ultimate greatness would be and how it would act, while there is no connection to it.
The argument of evil falls flat in that regard and becomes paradoxical.  It has no argument.

The argument from evil is a response to the claim that there is an omnipotent being who is infinitely good. Evil can only exist in the presence of an omnipotent being if the omnipotent being allows it or doesn't know about it. It doesn't apply to versions of God that are so unfathomable that one can't tell from its supposed works whether it favors good or evil.

But let us go further. Does it refute atheism?

You shouldn't try to go further until you've succeed in what you've attempted so far. I presume that by 'refute atheism' you mean to demonstrate that belief in Allah is rationally justified.

Let us begin with some reflections. What is a name? A name is just sounds or letters symbolizing sounds – but – it is how we remember people with an image. In the case of God, is his image different then his name? Or is the word of light, also the face of his light?

Names are arbitrary symbols designating something, real or imagined, They're like the legend of a map. The map is an approximate representation of something, not the thing itself, and names are like symbols that help you describe the map. We can easily remember the image of people whose name we don't know, btw.

The name of God is by which if God exists, we would recall the ultimate being.

There is nothing that exists in reality 'by its name'. Real things exist whether they have names or not. We can recall things even if we don't name them. Most animals don't use names at all and can recall things just fine.

What does the term “God” mean in Arabic? It means that which is worshipped. When we value ourselves above all else, we are essentially saying we are more important then everything else. We think love inside our hearts should be most oriented towards ourselves. When we love close family or friends just as much, that would be the highest value we give. You cannot no matter how much you try to escape it or avoid the term, not worship. Humans value something higher on scale than most things, be it it whatever jokes may follow, sex, boobs, w/e.

'Worship' is a word with multiple senses. When you use different senses of the same word to confuse distinctions, it's called the fallacy of equivocation. You are equivocating the meaning of worship as 'religious adoration and veneration' with mundane admiration and valuation. I've been religious, and the way I value the things I value now are nothing like the abject worship of a deity that I once engaged in. I love my family and friends, but I don't worship them and they don't want to be worshipped.

noun: worship

1. the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.
"the worship of God"

synonyms: reverence, veneration, adoration, glorification, glory, exaltation; More
devotion, praise, thanksgiving, homage, honor;
archaicmagnification

"the worship of idols"

•the acts or rites that make up a formal expression of reverence for a deity; a religious ceremony or ceremonies.
"the church was opened for public worship"

synonyms: service, religious rite, prayer, praise, devotion, religious observance
"morning worship"

•adoration or devotion comparable to religious homage, shown toward a person or principle.
"our society’s worship of teenagers"

synonyms: admiration, adulation, idolization, lionization, hero worship
"he contemplated her with worship"

verb

verb: worship; 3rd person present: worships; past tense: worshipped; past participle: worshipped; gerund or present participle: worshipping; past tense: worshiped; past participle: worshiped; gerund or present participle: worshiping

1.
show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites.
"the Maya built jungle pyramids to worship their gods"

synonyms: revere, reverence, venerate, pay homage to, honor, adore, praise, pray to, glorify, exalt, extol; More
hold dear, cherish, treasure, esteem, adulate, idolize, deify, hero-worship, lionize, overpraise;

follow, look up to;

informalput on a pedestal;

formallaud;

archaicmagnify

"they worship pagan gods"

To say you worship something is it say that you value things with degrees.

When you torture a word enough, you can make it mean anything, I suppose.

When God is not valued at highest degree such that everything really pales to that value and respect given to him not given at a much higher level then everything else, than it can be said we have multiple things we value at a very high level.

That sounds like an argument for not valuing god in the highest degree. That way you can have multiple things we value at a very high level.

With most humans, it’s not that they don’t value God, it is just that they don’t value him enough to the extent they value other things or others or themselves as much or even more then God.

Um, are you still trying to prove the existence of God? You seem to be on a preaching tangent.

The name of “that which ought to be valued the most” in possibility worlds speaking, has to be a connection that makes us know what ought to be valued the most.

No, it doesn't.

This is true regardless now if supernatural being exists or not.

Whether it's true depends on whether the supposed thing that ought to be valued the most really exists or not.

It is true I am saying regardless if a spirit Creator exists or not. At this point. But I will be showing, the opposite as well. That now I say for sake of argument, it is true regardless if a spirit Eternal creator or not, only to show that it is essential a spirit Eternal Creator exists and is that being.

And this comes under the heading of 'mere assertion'.

The regardless whether “God” exists, or not, that this is true, is because if you think about it,  there has to be something that ought to be valued the most at least by us as an individual objectively.

Even if that's true, it doesn't mean that it should be the same thing for everyone, or that what should be valued the most can't change depending on the circumstances. When I'm coming home, I value greeting my family the most. When I'm drowning, I value getting a breath of air the most.

A person can say they are that person because they have control over, a mother may feel that is her baby because it depends on her to nourish it, etc, etc…
Whatever it is, something ought to be valued the most.

I feel like I can value multiple things equally, or that what I value the most can shift depending on what I need the most at the time. I don't see why I should commit to giving one thing prime value under any and all circumstances. Especially not just because you say so.

Now let us talk about what connects us to know and recall that thing? All existing good conscious beings I would argue together including the most to be valued from them, are more important than just an individual from them (but would include that individual that ought to be valued most).

This seems to be gibberish. Are you using a translator?

 
Now we can say “the need of the many ought weight that of a few” or something on those lines.
 
But what makes us KNOW this.

We don't KNOW it in capital letters. You're describing the axiom of Utilitarianism, a secular moral philosophy. We have innate moral sentiments such as fairness and reciprocity, but the principle that 'what is good for the greatest number is good' is not one of them.

So far we talked about quantity, but what about quality. What qualities would make an individual out of the collective the most one out of all individuals to be valued?
 
We can say I don’t know and we can’t know. But then we find ourselves still valuing something or someone more than others, and that we have degrees of value.

If so, it implies nothing about whether or not Allah is real.

The measuring balance by which things should be valued, I argue, is that very thing which connects us to that thing which would be valued the most and makes us know it.Without that measuring balance, we can’t value anything with right balanced measure, we become unbalanced in how we perceive people.

More assertions.

We maybe harshly judgmental or positively judgmental, but it maybe none of that is on truth.I argue value has to be if there is something we ought to value the most, has to be based on truth. That truth has to be the eyes by which we measure it. I also argue that truth is that name/connection/reference/sign/pointer/indication/image of that which ought to be valued the most.

Truth is that which conforms to reality. Something is true or not true whether or not it has a name/connection/reference/sign/pointer/indication/image of that which ought to be valued the most.
 

But if we think about it, and we really we really think about it, can that which be valued the most be limited?

Yes, obviously.

Since we said the true measurement is that name, it must indicate all measurements of all values possible.

Just because you said something, it doesn't mean anything must be indicated.

But we know we can’t measure all scales and we don’t, so what does it mean?  IT means it is a like an arrow aimed at never reached sky, it realizes the endless boundary of value, that there is no limit of loving, valuing, and honoring, yet all this somehow connected to us, that we must measure by truth as argued before if we ought to value something more than others.

Were you high when you typed this?

 
To say there exists nothing we ought to value the most, but rather, we simple choose what we want to value the most, I will argue is not possible.

You mean you will assert that it's not possible.

I will argue when you value something more than others, you do so out of belief. You do so because you believe that thing ought to be valued, whether that belief is chaotic and stems from lust, or caprice, it doesn’t matter.

You don't really need to argue that, I'm happy to concede that we value what we value because of what we believe about the things that we value.

 
And there lies the issue.

FINALLY!

To believe there is a thing that ought to be valued the most is rational, and yet everyone would be ashamed to say “I am a god to myself” or “Hot women are my goal and gods…” etc….or “Money” or “Fame is one of my gods”.

To believe that there is a thing that ought to be valued the most is not rational if there is insufficent evidence that the thing actually exists to make such belief sufficiently rationally justified.  

Everyone knows truly there is but one thing worthy of being that which ought to be valued the most.

That's not true.

But the thought process doesn’t rely on the above line. I have shown logically and rationally, that.

You have asserted at length without foundation or establishing any of your premises as actually true.

1. We are connected to refer to and know and recognize that which ought to be valued the most.

Assertion

2. That which ought to be valued the most is an unbounded limitless sky, which we can aim to head to, but will never reach.

Assertion

3. That name which connects us to it is the same eyes by which we have to judge by ourselves, and know ourselves through, as well as perceive others through if there is any truth to “valuing”.

Assertion. And names are arbitrary designators for animals, concepts, persons, places, or things.  

There is MANY premises (these 3 are not initial premises, but what has been proven), and I thought numbering them and presenting them that way, but I have had bad experience with that.

A good argument is built on as few premises (assumptions) as possible. You don't have to subject us to walls of text, MK. You've done a lot of writing, but there doesn't seem to be an actual argument here. Not to be mean, but superficially it looks like you're using the wall of text method of obscuring the fact that you don't have a cogent argument for the existence of the deity you worship. But possibly you were just excited because you had a shiny new theological notion.

---

Did you need a drink after this, MA?  🥃

[Mister Agenda]

LOL! It was a chore all right. But MK made a good point that I wasn't addressing the entirety of his post, and since he was gone a long time, I felt the least I could do was put in the effort.

[Astonished]

Bottom line, most of us would have to suffer extreme brain trauma to be capable of believing in and accepting the claims for MK's sky daddy. That he currently believes it for probably even worse reasons than he's trying to peddle to us, and the resulting demonstration of its negative effect on his mental state, does not make a tempting offer for anyone who's spent the majority of their life enjoying a healthy, functional, reasonably intelligent mind.

I literally got the message he was putting across to be analogous to, "So because each of my fingernails is painted a different shade of pink, that is why all pickled herring tastes like grape Kool-Aid." Completely non-sequitur in the reason for his conclusion, completely erroneous conclusion, and complete and utter failure to realize this.

[Brian37]

Atlass, as our only other active Muslim, yea we all knew he said that, but I don't want him to leave. I think it is good for the west to see disagreements between Muslims just like I think it is good for Christians to see disagreements between atheists. I think he needed to leave because something in his life was stressing him out, and he didn't need more stress here. He may have meant it at the time sure. But I would prefer him to come back and try to argue here, than to get sucked into something horrible, like ISIS. 

Yes even you question him as well as we do, but his coming back after saying he wouldn't should be the least of our worries. I think he merely is still trying to find his place in the world. I have problems with your arguments as well, but as everyone knows, Catholic Lady and A-Theist also catch crap from me. 

You are both safe here even though we can be blunt with our words. MK annoys me mostly because he sounds like I did pining after a cheer leader in Highschool. But I don't want him gone, or arrested or dead anymore than I want that for you. But logic wise yes, I do pull my hair out. Point being does not matter that he said he wouldn't come back but did. What matters is that we know by him doing this, he didn't go completely off the deep end.

My problem was always about what the religion he preaches actually says.
Eventually the step that follows is paying allegiance to a Bedwin clan that died 1400 years ago. That is what Shiite faith is all about: love of Ali:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ndson.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...shura.html

Lying about this is a virtue in the Shiite faith:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya#Twelver_Shia_view

Syria was destroyed because of Shiite Jihadists mainly. It wasn't ISIS alone; ISIS and Shiites together turned the place into oblivion.
The barbaric shadow of both Sunnies and Shiites did turn the Middle East into a living hell. I'm just sick of the blood; that's why you find me posting against any Shiite or any Sunni.

It's so grim. Like a hammer and a sickle.
And if you talk in public; you either get a Sunni knife, or a Shiite rope to the neck.

I would respect him a lot if he began to tell others about the shitty smell Muslims produced till now. But how do I know he is not using the Taqyiia laws?
The Middle East is literally, and I mean literally, a static toilet. From death to robbery of rights, and all this was defended by his religion. See Iran.
Let's not forget Sunnies and Saudi Arabia.

But you're right. It's better for him to spend his time here; rather than Jihadi undergrounds. And it's healthy for people to see the difference in POVs between others.

I am always for human rights and always will be Atlass, and x Muslims also do what you do in pointing out how Islam in the east is causing huge problems between Sunnis and Shiites along with the rest of the world.

But this is not strictly about Islam for me. This is about the totality of the species in our entire global history. For the same reason Sunnis and Shiites cant get along, a Trump voting Evangelical does not see the bible or politics the same way a Obama voting baptist or Catholic does. It is still the same God and the same book they both use. The same can be said for why a Tibet Buddhist will not see Buddhism or politics the same way as a Chinese Buddhist or Japanese Shinto Buddhists.

I am glad that you are willing to be brave to challenge your fellow Muslims in that part of the world, and I hope in all seriousness you don't end up dead for your intellectual bravery. I may give you a hard time but I sincerely mean it. People like you if they grow in numbers can pull that part of the world into modern civility.

Islam did not invent human cruelty. In our species totality there is not one region in the world that has been 100% violence free.  Christians used to look like too much of the east still looks today. While I don't want Israel wiped off the map, they too have their right wing nuts whom use religion to justify harm of others. 

My point is our species far too widely fails to consider that the reasons we do good or bad are not a battle from above, but a failure to see our behaviors as being in us.

But yea, I most certainly can live with a Muslim like you even if you never leave your religion. I don't think you need your religion but I certainly would not abandon anyone who values non violence and common law regardless.

[Aegon]

*smiles*

[Whateverist]

Ok then let's concentrate on that one if you say so.

I don't understand a single word. This summary is just gibberish to me. Maybe too compressed?

If we aren't perceived as we are, we don't have an exact value. We do have an exact value. Therefore we are perceived exactly as we are. The only Vision that can see our exact value is perfect judgment. 

Yes, this absolutely proves God.

Without a better book keeper I can't tell you what I'm worth.  Of course my dogs tend to inflate my value and my wife tends to underestimate it.  But all fooling aside, that sure seems like one very cockamamy idea.

[drfuzzy]

---

And how is that relevant? The name/concept of God is not the same thing as God. But yes, God shall be defined. And if he is defined to be all powerful, all good and all knowing.... well, the argument from evil addresses those things and you haven't.

Fair enough if you don't think your God is all good, all powerful and all knowing. But in that case... why are you even bothering to attempt to argue against the argument from evil when it's not relevant to the God you believe in?

---

---

No, rather it's simple. You don't get to define what it means to be all-good while denying that there is any connection to the all-good because there is no all good, you make an imaginary sky which is the highest ultimate good, and you then define how it would be, create the world, and what it will, and say you see we proven such a being cannot exist, by a connection we don't have with him but just have made up.

If Highest Goodness exists, it is not going to be known simply by our whims nor blind shots in the dark, but must be recognized through a connection to it.

The above line includes the following statement: "If it not recognized through a connection to it, Highest Goodness would not be known".

If you have no idea what it is because you are arguing there is no connection, how can you put terms on it?

Or is that they are making use of his connection to the highest goodness while disbelieving in it and disproving it?

Come on dude. That is only a small part, it's not the main dish. The main dish is the proof I offered to how we can know God exists (among many other ways).

---

---

If there was any being even remotely like Yahweh, Allah . . . or any being that actually wants us to know it and worship it - no human would ever need to tie him or herself into such convoluted knots to prove it's existence.

There is no need, because Quran does the best job, at proving and reminding of his existence.  However, the Quran needs receptive ears, reflection and true armies of intelligence to go with it.

If God exists, we certainly don't need people like me to prove it's existence.

---

I am just trying to help you guys that despite him emanating guidance from himself, reciting clear arguments for his existence and his religion, and despite appointing interpreters and leaders who guide by his command,  don't see the truth.

Indeed it maybe no matter how much I try, as long as you intend to be averse to God, then God will not allow the truth to enter your heart or receive no matter how clear the argument is, because you don't want to perceive.

Moses, Noah, other Prophets, they were all accused of being unclear, speaking nonsense, that no one understood what they say, but the Quran shows that was not true, people became rather blinded by their sheer opposition to the truth and believed in their own slogans despite them not making sense, and constantly demanded for clearer proofs, instead of looking at the clear proofs presented be they physical miracles they call sorcery or the divine books which stand towering above that of the speech of humans.

---

There is no book on this earth that comes even remotely close to proving the existence of god.  Isn't it funny that all "revelation of god" - no matter which god - has emerged from the imagination of a human being?  That's all "holy" books are.  Fantasies.  But you're right - if a god exists, he doesn't need people like you - or any human being, or any book, to prove it exists.  It's amazing that you would waste so much time typing up such wall-of-text convoluted argument nonsense when you admit yourself that your god doesn't need you to make the effort.