Benevolent Creator God?

[R00tKiT]

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

I asked about whether you have some good objective (not personal) grounds to say the probability of an afterlife existing is close to 0%, not about your personal beliefs - I already know you don't believe in anything non-empirical.

So what is the mechanism that enables to you to assign probabilities to scenarios like an afterlife.. if any ?

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.

You actually are. Any assertion you can't rule out is a possible assertion, this is basic common sense that I thought I didn't need to spell out. And I'm sorry to know you allow yourself to commit category mistakes and whatnot to fit your bias towards the empirical world.

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?

Because your standards are built on a logical fallacy, lack of data about X = nonexistence of X. This is completely false, argument from ignorance.

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?

Of course I can be argued out of my beliefs. Why else would I be on an atheist forum explaining my reasons to believe..? But so far, all I can see is that you don't acknowledge the simple fact that holy books do contain correct stuff. In the case of the Qur'an, I am prepared to say it contains correct+possibly unfalsifiable stuff, is it some trick of the prophet to make sure he will always be right? Probably not, unfalsifiable doesn't imply false, after all.

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...?

Sure, I understand that you think the Qur'an is filled with errors, but here, I am trying to focus on one specific example: the pharaoh's claim of divinity. The Qur'an clearly agrees with the Bible about the pharaoh's story, but then makes the imprudent move of mentioning details that could be falsified. If, for example, it turned out (after we decipherd the hieroglyphs) the egyptian pharaoh worshipped some super pharaoh or some deity -a completely plausible scenario, that would clearly invalidate some Qur'anic verses wouldn't it?

Why would Muhammad mention details that might turn out to be wrong later? If I were a prudent prophet who is trying to cover his lie, I would make unfalsifiable statements of ancient figures like the pharaoh, but that's not what we have.

And back to the assumption of God existing, I really would like to know where exactly I am wrong in this reasoning : a just God certainly won't leave humanity astray/without guidance => there has to be guidance => the Qur'an is a good candidate for this guidance.

Do you think a just God can logically leave humanity without any guidance ? that a God doesn't have to be just ..? or simply there are other candidates than the Qur'an ??

[Fake Messiah]

But so far, all I can see is that you don't acknowledge the simple fact that holy books do contain correct stuff. In the case of the Qur'an, I am prepared to say it contains correct+possibly unfalsifiable stuff, is it some trick of the prophet to make sure he will always be right? Probably not, unfalsifiable doesn't imply false, after all.

I must say, I've seen plenty of false stuff in the Qur'an, and I'll let Muslims talk about them

[Astreja]

I asked about whether you have some good objective (not personal) grounds to say the probability of an afterlife existing is close to 0%, not about your personal beliefs - I already know you don't believe in anything non-empirical.

Okay, then - I see no objective (not personal) evidence that such a thing as an afterlife exists, or even that such a thing could exist.  That in itself is more than enough to power my disbelief.  Life is much too short to play "what-if" games with every untestable hypothesis that someone dreams up.

Any assertion you can't rule out is a possible assertion.

Like the invisible dragon sitting in your living room, for instance?  

Because your standards are built on a logical fallacy, lack of data about X = nonexistence of X. This is completely false, argument from ignorance.

Klorophyll, it's becoming increasingly obvious to me why your posts get such a bad reception around here.  You insist upon confounding personal beliefs (which are by nature subjective) with objective facts, hopping from one foot from another in your Logical Fallacy Faerie costume and resorting to special pleading whenever we ask that you abide by the same standards that you demand of us.

I know that you have beliefs, beliefs that are extremely important to you.  At least have the self-awareness to recognize that other people have excellent reasons for not believing the same things that you do.  If you can't accept that, that's your loss rather than ours.

ETA: Your equation is also wrong. I didn't say that X didn't exist; I said that I did not believe that X existed. There's a huge difference between those two positions, and in that context your accusation of a logical fallacy is groundless.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course I can be argued out of my beliefs. Why else would I be on an atheist forum explaining my reasons to believe..? But so far, all I can see is that you don't acknowledge the simple fact that holy books do contain correct stuff. In the case of the Qur'an, I am prepared to say it contains correct+possibly unfalsifiable stuff, is it some trick of the prophet to make sure he will always be right? Probably not, unfalsifiable doesn't imply false, after all.

I don't think that you're being honest with yourself, here, so you can't really be exact with me.  I know for a fact that pointing out the hilarious mistakes in magic book doesn't move you.  Again, we've had this conversation - I've seen how you handle it...and I think you might know how you'd handle as much...as well.

Who said anything about unfalsifiable?  Your magic book got shit demonstrably wrong.  That's not an issue of something being unfalsifiable, just false.

Sure, I understand that you think the Qur'an is filled with errors

Good. And knowing just that, you can know that your previous contention was false on it's face - even if you don't agree with my own position. Congratz!, No one will ever have too hear you say such a silly thing again....riiiight.....? In mere point of fact, I don't actually have to believe that your man god got anything right, by fairies or otherwise....let alone miraculously so.

but here, I am trying to focus on one specific example: the pharaoh's claim of divinity. The Qur'an clearly agrees with the Bible about the pharaoh's story, but then makes the imprudent move of mentioning details that could be falsified. If, for example, it turned out (after we decipherd the hieroglyphs) the egyptian pharaoh worshipped some super pharaoh or some deity -a completely plausible scenario, that would clearly invalidate some Qur'anic verses wouldn't it?

I already addressed this, pages ago. Egyptian potentates claim to divinity was not a secret...ever...to anyone. They asserted as much openly and advertised it with monumental construction. This isn't Big Mo getting things miraculously right.... it is, quite frankly, just you being a complete idiot. I hope I never again hear such an incompetent argument...for anything.

Why would Muhammad mention details that might turn out to be wrong later? If I were a prudent prophet who is trying to cover his lie, I would make unfalsifiable statements of ancient figures like the pharaoh, but that's not what we have.

And back to the assumption of God existing, I really would like to know where exactly I am wrong in this reasoning : a just God certainly won't leave humanity astray/without guidance => there has to be guidance => the Qur'an is a good candidate for this guidance.

Do you think a just God can logically leave humanity without any guidance ? that a God doesn't have to be just ..? or simply there are other candidates than the Qur'an ??

Why would a nut be a nut?  

Because he was a nut.  Who cares?  You dont actually care that magic book gets shit wrong and when it's pointed out to you.... you will search for some reason why wrong is right.

It's pointless and insulting to contend otherwise. You're already winding that bullshit up, up above. You know I have no patience for it. I wont treat you like a child to whom the truth cant be spoken just because it makes you scrunch up your face, pound your fists, and say silly shit - ala this thread. Even if you don't respect yourself or your own beliefs enough to do better, I won't allow that this is your best work. There can be a god...who never wrote any books. It's not as if -you- think god was prodigious writer, either........

Try again? Or dont..because, if I hadn't made this clear enough, I've never had any trouble ruling out the gods. Not other peoples gods, or your borrowed jewish knockoff. It's fucking shameful that this is even a discussion. You, are wrong. Your magic book.is wrong. Your god is imaginary, and your religion is silly.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

But we can confirm or disconfirm now, can’t we? Are you being obtuse on purpose? 

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??

The exact same way the Bible got some specific historical details about pharaohs correct, and yet you don’t accept biblical accuracies about Egypt, or Egyptian culture, or Egyptian Pharos to be evidence of divine revelation, lol. Take your ball and go home, dude.

 

I aleady reminded you that the correct information in the Bible isn't a threat to the Qur'an

I never said it was. Are you playing dumb on purpose?

[Gwaithmir]

@Mercyvessel

Of course, it’s easy for us with our 21st Century, materialistic minds to dismiss the Bible as a load of rubbish. But in the actual analysis, that is exactly what the Bible turns out to be---a load of rubbish! It is a book of nonsensical, fantastic stories about talking animals, talking bushes, mythical creatures, people rising from the dead, magic and pseudo-history. It is the creation of ignorant, fallible men, reflecting the prejudices, superstitions, bad theology and fears of the times in which it was written. It promotes slavery, ethnic cleansing, race prejudice, wars of conquest, the subjugation of women, child abuse and genital mutilation. It promotes the worship and celebration of a god who is little more than an egotistical, homicidal, fear-mongering tyrant. It is a book which any reasonable, intellectually honest, and intelligent person should heartily dismiss as bad fiction.

[R00tKiT]

Okay, then - I see no objective (not personal) evidence that such a thing as an afterlife exists, or even that such a thing could exist.  That in itself is more than enough to power my disbelief.  Life is much too short to play "what-if" games with every untestable hypothesis that someone dreams up.

Sorry to bother you with what-if games. It's just that there is a potential risk of infinite loss if one plays this game dishonestly. Is it rational not to worry about the possibility of an infinite loss?

God's existence is a sufficient condition for the existence of an afterlife, as I repeatedly explained in this forum. It's not really difficult to understand why: a basic property of God is justice. A consequence of justice is that all people should be accountable for their acts, and hence there has to be another life where such a thing happens - this is really a trivial corollary of the assumption that God exists.

And since we have very compelling arguments for God's existence, I am afraid an afterlife is more than just some idea someone dreamed up.

Like the invisible dragon sitting in your living room, for instance?  

Exactly. Do you have some way to rule out the existence of my invisible dragon? Until you do, just acknowledge this simple rule of thumb: any assertion you can't rule out is possible, any assertion.

 You insist upon confounding personal beliefs (which are by nature subjective) with objective facts, hopping from one foot from another in your Logical Fallacy Faerie costume and resorting to special pleading whenever we ask that you abide by the same standards that you demand of us.

This really is a pretty accurate description of yourself. You didn't bother to be precise and mention that everything you say is your personal opinion, not some argument you're going to defend objectively.

I know that you have beliefs, beliefs that are extremely important to you.  At least have the self-awareness to recognize that other people have excellent reasons for not believing the same things that you do.  If you can't accept that, that's your loss rather than ours.

I can't think of any excellent reason to not to be open to deductive or ontological arguments -like you are.

I know for a fact that pointing out the hilarious mistakes in magic book doesn't move you.  Again, we've had this conversation - I've seen how you handle it...and I think you might know how you'd handle as much...as well.

I am sorry if your hilarious attempts to find the purported mistakes don't move me. I am a regular member of arabic atheist forums since 2013, so I am familiar with most of their desperate attempts of finding mistakes, some think the Qur'an got the embryonic development wrong, some think the Qur'an says semen originates from the backbone/the ribs ( dishonestly omitting the word between in the verse), some think the Qur'an says the sun sets in a muddy spring, I saw this stuff repeated dozens of time. Anything else you want to add? Or do you want me to point out their misunderstandings for you?

Do you think any of these accusations are right, or that they misunderstood the verses in question? 

And, the most important question : Do you think the Qur'an can't be misunderstood .. especially by people who are biased against it?

Good.  And knowing just that, you can know that your previous contention was false on it's face - even if you don't agree with my own position.  Congratz!, No one will ever have too hear you say such a silly thing again....riiiight.....?  In mere point of fact, I don't actually have to believe that your man god got anything right, by fairies or otherwise....let alone miraculously so.

Now you are just being dishonest. Do you think the Qur'an is somewhat also wrong when it mentions mundane facts?

I already addressed this, pages ago.  Egyptian potentates claim to divinity was not a secret...ever...to anyone.  They asserted as much openly and advertised it with monumental construction.  

Okay. So Muhammad wasn't wrong mentioning their claim of divinity, he was at worst mentioning mundane facts, right? Why did you say this, then :

 In mere point of fact, I don't actually have to believe that your man god got anything right

Are you sure you don't want to take this one back?

They asserted as much openly and advertised it with monumental construction.  

How does monumental construction tell you they claimed they're gods ? Does Mount Rushmore prove Washington or Lincoln claimed divinity ? 

Nobody is contesting that the pharaohs openly asserted divinity -that's what the Qur'an is telling you, duh. but not as openly for it to reach Arabia centuries later. The bible would've mentioned that if their authors knew it, for example. 

And my question that went unanswered was, how does Muhammad distinguish fact from fiction in these ancient stories, People also advertise myths openly. disagree? You actually can't disagree, since you think Muhammad advertised the myth of Islam, so why didn't he advertise some ancient myth that was later debunked after people could decipher hieroglyphs? Any idea or example?

Why would a nut be a nut?  

Because he was a nut.  Who cares?  You dont actually care that magic book gets shit wrong and when it's pointed out to you.... you will search for some reason why wrong is right.

You failed like everybody else, for 14 centuries, to point out anything wrong in the Qur'an. To be fair, there are some verses that can easily be misunderstood as mistakes because of the nature of Classical Arabic, add that to dubious translations, but whose fault is that? People who study arabic badly, or those who think googling "qur'an mistakes" is a reliable way to reach ultimate reality ? Why would some fool today think they understand classical Arabic better than the people who surrounded Muhammad, who had every reason to invalidate his claims and ridicule the Qur'an, and who were, of course, more fluent than any arabic native speaker alive...? -and certainly more fluent than any non-native speaker........

Put yourself in our shoes, someone comes to you and tells you they found a mistake (sometimes, even a grammar mistake) in the Qur'an. Then you wonder, someone who likely has no credentials relatively to classical arabic literature is criticizing the finest work of Arabic prose in existence, how should you proceed..?

  There can be a god...who never wrote any books.  It's not as if -you- think god was prodigious writer, either........

I agree there can be a god who never inspired a book, in which case he would have never communicated with us, . Now why do you rule out a god who inspires books? What's inherently contradictoy about communicating a message to a human being.. or is it just that you think there no sufficient evidence..?

Absent all known religious books, there is no known sign of divine guidance. Agree? disagree?

[Fake Messiah]

You failed like everybody else, for 14 centuries, to point out anything wrong in the Qur'an.

Qur'an is full of lies, here are some

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, I understand that you think the Qur'an is filled with errors, but here, I am trying to focus on one specific example: the pharaoh's claim of divinity.

Then you should already know that I don't have to believe that there are fairies, or big mo got things miraculously right.

The Qur'an clearly agrees with the Bible about the pharaoh's story

Agreeing with the christian or jewish magic book isn't the same thing as something being historically accurate.  Neither of their magic books are historically accurate either.  

And..again, it was never a secret that pharaohs claimed to be divine.  It was an organizing principle of their society, a society which persisted for thousands of years; shaping, influencing and communicating with every other culture in the region.

You probably need a better example.  If you don't have one, you don't have a miracle here, or djinn, or even a particularly wise mans sayings.[/quote]

Now you are just being dishonest. Do you think the Qur'an is somewhat also wrong when it mentions mundane facts?

I think it's clear that I don't need to believe in djinn or that a persona was accidentally right with mundane facts - egyptian potentates claims to divinity being among them.

Are you sure you don't want to take this one back?

Entirely, as big mo didn't write a single word in magic book to be right or wrong, accidentally, miraculously, or otherwise.

You failed like everybody else, for 14 centuries, to point out anything wrong in the Qur'an. To be fair, there are some verses that can easily be misunderstood as mistakes because of the nature of Classical Arabic, add that to dubious translations, but whose fault is that? People who study arabic badly, or those who think googling "qur'an mistakes" is a reliable way to reach ultimate reality ? Why would some fool today think they understand classical Arabic better than the people who surrounded Muhammad, who had every reason to invalidate his claims and ridicule the Qur'an, and who were, of course, more fluent than any arabic native speaker alive...? -and certainly more fluent than any non-native speaker........

More of your silly beliefs. 

Put yourself in our shoes, someone comes to you and tells you they found a mistake (sometimes, even a grammar mistake) in the Qur'an. Then you wonder, someone who likely has no credentials relatively to classical arabic literature is criticizing the finest work of Arabic prose in existence, how should you proceed..?

Oh no, someone is criticizing your favorite ghost story.  How could a westerner possibly understand that?  

.........................................................?

I agree there can be a god who never inspired a book, in which case he would have never communicated with us, . Now why do you rule out a god who inspires books? What's inherently contradictoy about communicating a message to a human being.. or is it just that you think there no sufficient evidence..?

I rule out your book as a representative of the hypothetical set.  

Absent all known religious books, there is no known sign of divine guidance. Agree? disagree?

Careful, believing in a mystical totem in the shape of  book is the only thing between you and atheism, apparently.

[R00tKiT]

The Qur'an doesn't say anywhere that the Earth is static. You can notice that this guy didn't mention any specific verse to back up his claims. 

Then you should already know that I don't have to believe that there are fairies, or big mo got things miraculously right.

The Qur'an clearly agrees with the Bible about the pharaoh's story

Agreeing with the christian or jewish magic book isn't the same thing as something being historically accurate.  Neither of their magic books are historically accurate either.  

And..again, it was never a secret that pharaohs claimed to be divine.  It was an organizing principle of their society, a society which persisted for thousands of years; shaping, influencing and communicating with every other culture in the region.

You probably need a better example.  If you don't have one, you don't have a miracle here, or djinn, or even a particularly wise mans sayings.

Well, the Qur'an is a bit more specific than that, the egyptian pharaoh said, verbatim, that he was the Lord, most high in person, that's more than just the claim of divine nature or divine inspiration. Besides, there are many egyptian deities that were widely worshipped, you might be familiar with the names Ra, Amun, Isis, Anubis, etc. Although I am no expert in ancient egypt, it seems that none of these deities were actual pharaohs, but simply mythological creations, some of which were represented in human form. What does that do to the pharaoh's claim being the highest God?

And sure, I am not claiming there is some miracle in this verse, just that Muhammad is taking an unnecssary risk delving into ancient egyptian history.

Entirely, as big mo didn't write a single word in magic book to be right or wrong, accidentally, miraculously, or otherwise.

Well, nobody wrote the Qur'an. it's an orally recited book, to be precise. Do you think it wasn't Muhammad who recited the book?

I rule out your book as a representative of the hypothetical set.  

I am not sure I follow. Do you mean you reject the Qur'an as a possible candidate for a divinely inspied book? If so, why.. exactly?