Benevolent Creator God?

[R00tKiT]

There is no afterlife, just an afterdeath.

Thank you for opening my eyes. You should get Nobel Prizes in all the six eligible fields for this discovery.

I never claimed Muhammad copied anything. My point is, if you’re willing admit to yourself that it’s possible whoever wrote the Bible got correct information about Egypt from “some source,” then you need to similarly admit to yourself it’s possible that Muhammad and/or whoever wrote the Quran also got correct information about Egypt from “some source.” If you want to be consistent in your reasoning, that is.

It literally wasn't possible to check whether information about some ancient pharaoh is accurate because, as I said, nobody in Arabia could decipher hieroglyphs. Even now, not many people can understand ancient egyptian. We're then left with hearsay, the problem with popular stories about some pharaoh is that they are mixed with myths and exaggerations. My question stands, how could Muhammad pick exact details like those mentioned in the midst of mythology??

 I aleady reminded you that the correct information in the Bible isn't a threat to the Qur'an, the latter acknowledges that the Bible was initially the word of God. False stuff in the bible can then simply attributed to later alterations, starting with Paul's, the so-called apostle, the disservice he did to christianity can't be described in words.

Well..it's certainly not that, on account of how magic book gets things as hilariously wrong and just as often as the people it cribbed them from.  Whether thats the bits of judaism and christianity and their myths-as-history, or the greek medicine of the time.

Can you cite some specific verse which you think is wrong?

I have no way to tell one way or another, but my disbelief in an afterlife is very, very close to 100%.

How do you get to this probability?

---

The thing about a natural origin of life is it gives no reason to think the natural world ought to be better (or worse) to us than it acually is.

Well, any conceivable natural world isn't maximal. We can always imagine a better world than the world we have. Even heaven in Islamic eschatology comes with many different levels. 

Displaying gratitude to God for getting you out of a jam isn’t much different than thanking a man who bandages your wound after he stabs you.

Boru

Your example isn't very accurate. A man who stabs you burns in hell while God bandages your wound -and the man feels remorse for eternity. you are assigning evil to God and thus canceling free will and ability to commit evil.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well..it's certainly not that, on account of how magic book gets things as hilariously wrong and just as often as the people it cribbed them from.  Whether thats the bits of judaism and christianity and their myths-as-history, or the greek medicine of the time.

Can you cite some specific verse which you think is wrong?

You can find them all for yourself.

I'm pointing out that your contention that in order to explain your magic book a person must either believe in fairies or believe that big mo got a bunch of shit right by accident - is false on it's face.

The contents of myth and legend can be accurate and inaccurate, but they're never accidental, and they have nothing to do with fairies. Magic book didn't accidentally get the details of life wrong, or right. It actively and intentionally promoted those ideas the authors believed to be right, wherever they found them - even when they were, in fact, wrong.

An appeal to absurdity and incredulity works better in the opposite direction. If magic book is the word of a god, is that god an idiot? Does the author of creation not understand creation? Sounds ridiculous, right? That in order to believe that magic book is the word of a god you might have to accept a god who doesn't get things right. That to believe big mo's every utterance is just true, you might have to accept that you follow the lunatic rambling of a 6th century warlord.

[R00tKiT]

You can find them all for yourself.

I'm pointing out that your contention that in order to explain your magic book a person must either believe in fairies or believe that big mo got a bunch of shit right by accident - is false on it's face.

The contents of myth and legend can be accurate and inaccurate, but they're never accidental, and they have nothing to do with fairies.  Magic book didn't accidentally get the details of life wrong, or right.  It actively and intentionally promoted those ideas the authors believed to be right, wherever they found them - even when they were, in fact, wrong.

An appeal to absurdity and incredulity works better in the opposite direction.  If magic book is the word of a god, is that god an idiot?  Does the author of creation not understand creation?  Sounds ridiculous, right?  That in order to believe that magic book is the word of a god you might have to accept a god who doesn't get things right.  That to believe big mo's every utterance is just true, you might have to accept that you follow the lunatic rambling of a 6th century warlord.

Until you provide some specific verse which contains, beyond any reasonable doubt, an error, you don't have much to work with. You seem to forget that we are assuming God's existence here. If we are, then God intervening and sending a message is no longer an unlikely scenario, it's very likely, maybe even logically forced, that a God would communicate a message to someone at some point in history. Because, if not, then leaving humanity astray would be a threat to many properties(benevolence, justness) of God that we assumed exists.

[Paleophyte]

It literally wasn't possible to check whether information about some ancient pharaoh is accurate because, as I said, nobody in Arabia could decipher hieroglyphs. Even now, not many people can understand ancient egyptian. We're then left with hearsay, the problem with popular stories about some pharaoh is that they are mixed with myths and exaggerations. My question stands, how could Muhammad pick exact details like those mentioned in the midst of mythology??

Because it wasn't a minor detail and because the Pharaohs advertised the fact. That's rather the point to being a god king. Not much sense in not having the peasants grovelling from your divine majesty. They were hardly the only culture to pull that stunt either. The Babylonians, Syrians, Romans, and the Chinese emperors all tried the same schtick.

It's a little odd that you're even trying to maintain this position while simultaneously quoting portions of the Quran that clearly borrow heavily from Exodus/Shemot. It's clear that the Jews knew this. It would have been rather tricky for them to have missed it. It's equally clear that Muhammad had more than passing acquaintance with both Jewish and Christian societies. How then is it even vaguely unlikely that he couldn't have known about the god kings of Egypt from mundane sources?

[Astreja]

I have no way to tell one way or another, but my disbelief in an afterlife is very, very close to 100%.

How do you get to this probability?

It's an aggregate of several things:

• A lifelong lack of religious belief, and zero belief in gods -- any gods.
  
• No empirical evidence for a "spirit world" of any sort.
  
• A very strong lay knowledge of neurology, including typing hundreds of EEG reports.  In order to be conscious, the brain wave frequency has to be above a certain level.  The slower the waves become, the less aware and awake someone becomes.  Below about 4 Hz, in the delta frequency range, we don't even dream.  Brainwaves stop altogether at brain death.  Therefore, once someone dies it's vanishingly unlikely that there will be any "self" remaining to experience life after death.
  
• It's obvious to me that tales of heaven are wishful thinking to assuage the fear of nonexistence, and that tales of hell are Machiavellian threats specifically concocted by priests and rulers to frighten the population and keep them in line.
  

In my eyes the concept of life after death is a childishly absurd concept, and I simply can't take it seriously.

[The Grand Nudger]

You can find them all for yourself.

I'm pointing out that your contention that in order to explain your magic book a person must either believe in fairies or believe that big mo got a bunch of shit right by accident - is false on it's face.

The contents of myth and legend can be accurate and inaccurate, but they're never accidental, and they have nothing to do with fairies.  Magic book didn't accidentally get the details of life wrong, or right.  It actively and intentionally promoted those ideas the authors believed to be right, wherever they found them - even when they were, in fact, wrong.

An appeal to absurdity and incredulity works better in the opposite direction.  If magic book is the word of a god, is that god an idiot?  Does the author of creation not understand creation?  Sounds ridiculous, right?  That in order to believe that magic book is the word of a god you might have to accept a god who doesn't get things right.  That to believe big mo's every utterance is just true, you might have to accept that you follow the lunatic rambling of a 6th century warlord.

Until you provide some specific verse which contains, beyond any reasonable doubt, an error, you don't have much to work with. You seem to forget that we are assuming God's existence here. If we are, then God intervening and sending a message is no longer an unlikely scenario, it's very likely, maybe even logically forced, that a God would communicate a message to someone at some point in history. Because, if not, then leaving humanity astray would be a threat to many properties(benevolence, justness) of God that we assumed exists.

Are either of us pretending that it would be at all useful to point out the times your magic book gets something wrong and why?  I know for fact that we've already had this discussion, and more than once.

We can assume gods exist all we like, but that won't repair the actual contents of your magic book.  It's not actually unlikely that a god never wrote a book, it;s certainly not logically forced that a god ever communicated a message to anybody, and there's no reason to assume that by not writing the contents of your magic book or any magic book god has either "left us astray" or would be responsible for our current state. I point all this out to show that not only are you demonstrably wrong, but that even if we granted these non arguments, magic book is still the flaming garbage heap that it is. It fails on fact, it fails on principle, and it fails on grounds of your own contentions. Magic book has lead us astray and was communicated by no god and god has not intervened in this state of affairs whatsoever.

These are the articles of your faith - not rational products - which is why they make shit rational arguments, just like the last one. So, no, we don't have to believe in either fairies, or that big mo was accidentally right. I can believe that you're indoctrinated and ignorant instead - that's an option for explaining your beliefs about magic books presumed infallibility. Don't you think? My goal isn't to argue you out of your beliefs, it's to argue you out of floating trash arguments exclusively. One presumes, that for your very true and not at all silly religion, theres something approahing a rational belief behind it all, or is it just superstition and sloppy thinking all the way down?

[R00tKiT]

Because it wasn't a minor detail and because the Pharaohs advertised the fact. 

Do you have any reliable source supporting this assertion ? We all know pharaohs are kings, but kings who specifically claim they are the lord, most high... not really.

It's a little odd that you're even trying to maintain this position while simultaneously quoting portions of the Quran that clearly borrow heavily from Exodus/Shemot. It's clear that the Jews knew this. It would have been rather tricky for them to have missed it. It's equally clear that Muhammad had more than passing acquaintance with both Jewish and Christian societies. How then is it even vaguely unlikely that he couldn't have known about the god kings of Egypt from mundane sources?

I don't feel like repeating it again: the Qur'an borrowing something or having a specific story in common with the Bible isn't really a threat to its validity, all Muslims believe the Bible was originally the word of God, there is even an authentic saying of Muhammad specifically forbidding Muslims to repudiate anything in the corrupt bible, because it's mixed with what we regard as genuine divine inspiration.

It's not clear at all that Muhammad is familiar with Christianity or Judaism, there was no Arabic bible in his time, the arabic translation of the bible came long after his death. Once again, all Muhammad had was hearsay from christian or jewish people, which were as vulnerable to committing an error or broadcasting a myth as he was, and yet, he seemed to get these details right. Why take the risk for someone who knows he's making up the Qur'an? Why not simply mention the pharaoh wihout any additional details that threaten his credibility as a prophet?

I have no way to tell one way or another, but my disbelief in an afterlife is very, very close to 100%.

How do you get to this probability?

It's an aggregate of several things:

• A lifelong lack of religious belief, and zero belief in gods -- any gods.

That can't be a deciding factor, you're trying to argue from your personal experience -invalid argument. I too held a lifelong belief in an afterlife, and I think you would agree that me believing in an afterlife wouldn't increase its probability of being real.

• No empirical evidence for a "spirit world" of any sort.

I told you more than once that a spirit world or a god is a non-emprical being by definition, an so to rule it out on the grounds of lack of empirical evidence is a category mistake.

I know you think non-empirical being is equivalent to non-existence, but you have no way to prove that, and therefore, at best, you're stuck with agnosticism. 

A very strong lay knowledge of neurology, including typing hundreds of EEG reports.  In order to be conscious, the brain wave frequency has to be above a certain level.  The slower the waves become, the less aware and awake someone becomes.  Below about 4 Hz, in the delta frequency range, we don't even dream.  Brainwaves stop altogether at brain death.  Therefore, once someone dies it's vanishingly unlikely that there will be any "self" remaining to experience life after death.

It's obvious to me that tales of heaven are wishful thinking to assuage the fear of nonexistence, and that tales of hell are Machiavellian threats specifically concocted by priests and rulers to frighten the population and keep them in line.


In my eyes the concept of life after death is a childishly absurd concept, and I simply can't take it seriously.

Vanishingly unlikely isn't equivalent to impossible, especially if we assume God exists. It's true though that, absent a God, there is positively no good reason to think there is an afterlife. 

Are either of us pretending that it would be at all useful to point out the times your magic book gets something wrong and why?  I know for fact that we've already had this discussion, and more than once.

And what exactly were you expecting, that we applaude your unsubstantiated assessment about the Qur'an being a book full of errors, without bothering to make a full case for even one of them?

We can assume gods exist all we like, but that won't repair the actual contents of your magic book.  It's not actually unlikely that a god never wrote a book, it;s certainly not logically forced that a god ever communicated a message to anybody, and there's no reason to assume that by not writing the contents of your magic book or any magic book god has either "left us astray" or would be responsible for our current state.  I point all this out to show that not only are you demonstrably wrong, but that even if we granted these non arguments, magic book is still the flaming garbage heap that it is.  It fails on fact, it fails on principle, and it fails on grounds of your own contentions.  Magic book has lead us astray and was communicated by no god and god has not intervened in this state of affairs whatsoever.

Are you sure that the Qur'an is not the word of God ? Feel free to assert anything you like, you didn't give any good explanation of why Muhammad curiously gets things right? Your only answer was that we argue from incredulity.. not really, we're just trying to find the best explanation of the Qur'an. Is it really difficult to understand that, assuming a God who's willing to communicate with us exists, the Qur'an, and also the original OT/NT, are his words verbatim, that all the noise surrounding these books is the product of people's free will and their ability to corrupt God's message or to communicate it unclearly, and nothing more?

[Foxaèr]

Then let believers adjust their thinking toward agnosticism to avoid faithful fallibility.

[Astreja]

{A lifelong lack of religious belief, and zero belief in gods -- any gods} can't be a deciding factor, you're trying to argue from your personal experience -invalid argument.

Fuck off, Klorophyll. It's my own experience and it is 100% valid when talking about matters of my beliefs.

I told you more than once that a spirit world or a god is a non-emprical being by definition, an so to rule it out on the grounds of lack of empirical evidence is a category mistake.

I am under no obligation whatsoever to give the benefit of a doubt to unconvincing non-empirical assertions. None. Zero. "Category mistake" or not, it is ruled out in my worldview.

Vanishingly unlikely isn't equivalent to impossible, especially if we assume God exists.

I have never made the assumption that gods exist. That's your problem, not mine. I am living my life on the assumption that there are no gods and no afterlife and will not be modifying that position until and unless there is data that meets my evidentiary requirements. Why should I lower my standards?

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you sure that the Qur'an is not the word of God ?

Entirely sure, yes.  How has that ever been unclear?  I have to say, if you had hoped to peddle in base uncertainty, im not your target market.

Feel free to assert anything you like, you didn't give any good explanation of why Muhammad curiously gets things right? Your only answer was that we argue from incredulity.. not really, we're just trying to find the best explanation of the Qur'an. Is it really difficult to understand that, assuming a God who's willing to communicate with us exists, the Qur'an, and also the original OT/NT, are his words verbatim, that all the noise surrounding these books is the product of people's free will and their ability to corrupt God's message or to communicate it unclearly, and nothing more?

Here again, are either of us pretending that my pointing out the wrong things you still somehow believe to have been right will be useful?

You don't really believe that you could be argued out of your or those beliefs...do you?


Would it be a problem if some person argued from incredulity, would you object to that? My answer was demonstrably -not- that we argue from incredulity, as my entire post stands testament to. That's what you argued. That's the only thing, apparently, that you can imagine - or at least you declared that it must be so - in point of fact. That's all that you allow in reality. Is that a problem? I don't think that big mo got anything accidentally right, with or without the help of djinn. Its not that I can't believe he got so much right - that it's miraculous (that's you, again - I'm not the one who believes that the book is magic...remember?) - It's that I know he got so much wrong, and why.

That's basic information asymmetry between a cultist like yourself, and me. A different position to the one you described as the only position "under atheism".

Do you understand? Not, do you agree. Do...you...understand...?