Benevolent Creator God?

[Ahriman]

Well it means we don't have to worry about going out of our way to prove ourselves, since God is in control of the extreme stuff. We don't have to be extremely good or extremely evil, our only purpose is to live somewhere in the middle. So what is made maximally good, I suppose, is our peace of mind. Of course, not everyone lives in a state of psychological rest, but they should, since God gave us free will with the intention of us choosing the middle path. Bad things happen when people go to extreme lengths.

I knew FSM giving me the reply of 'stillborn babies' would continue to prove fruitful.

What extreme lengths do you suppose some women go through (and I'm willing to share a bit of personal information here, to be specific. My own mother) to cause a miscarriage? Would she be inherently bad before it or after?

Thoughts and prayers. RAmen

She wouldn't be bad for doing that. The action itself might be bad, but a person can do bad things all the time, and still not be inherently bad.

[Nay_Sayer]

I knew FSM giving me the reply of 'stillborn babies' would continue to prove fruitful.

What extreme lengths do you suppose some women go through (and I'm willing to share a bit of personal information here, to be specific. My own mother) to cause a miscarriage? Would she be inherently bad before it or after?

Thoughts and prayers. RAmen

She wouldn't be bad for doing that. The action itself might be bad, but a person can do bad things all the time, and still not be inherently bad.

Bad things happen when people go to extreme lengths.

I'll snip to ask again, What extreme length did she go through?

[Ahriman]

She wouldn't be bad for doing that. The action itself might be bad, but a person can do bad things all the time, and still not be inherently bad.

Bad things happen when people go to extreme lengths.

I'll snip to ask again, What extreme length did she go through?

I really don't know......I'm not sure what you're asking me.

[Nay_Sayer]

I'll snip to ask again, What extreme length did she go through?

I really don't know......I'm not sure what you're asking me.

You made an assertion I was merely asking for justification.

No worries, FSM foretold me this would occur. 

Continued thoughts and prayers. RAmen

[R00tKiT]

Until there's credible evidence for the existence of the deity, it's rather premature to say that the alleged deity did anything at all.

Until you open your mind to types of evidence other than empirical observation, there is nothing to discuss further relatively to the God question. We all agree, theists and atheists alike, that there is no direct empirical evidence of any supernatural being whatsoever, namely because the distinction natural/supernatural is a meaningless one that somewhat begs the atheist position.

Empirical data can only serve as a premise in a posteriori arguments for God's existence -which you are, sadly, allergic to.

But what if there never was a prize?  If I've checked behind 10 doors and found nothing, and also think that the alleged prize sounds rather silly, I'm not going to open another 40 doors - I'm just going to shrug and walk away.

Now that wasn't a very clever question. The 50 doors example is a hypothetical, where we assume there is one unique prize behind one door. I tried to make it as simple as possible: before the player finds the prize, he is justified in randomly opening doors, but once he stumbles upon the door with the prize, it's stupid to continue checking doors -because we assumed(those are the rules of the game) that there is only one prize and he already found it.

Similarly, until an agnostic finds some plausible answer, he should keep checking doors(religions), but once he finds some answer (valid or not), he doesn't have to keep looking into other religions, at least not until he figures out what's wrong with his current belief. -doing otherwise is unnecessary and tiresome multitasking.

Stories about miracles are a dime a dozen and only compelling to people who already think the stories are true...but I suspect you understand that already.

We're lucky we have the Qur'an as a miracle then, isn't it? In Islamic theology, there is this distinction between temporal and permanent miracles (I hope I translated that accurately). Moses's staff turning into a snake is clearly a temporal miracle, it only warrants belief for those who saw it. The Qur'an, however, is considered to be a permanent miracle, that is, a miracle that doesn't end with the prophet's death.

I will save you some time and point out that what's miraculous in the Qur'an is not linguistic merit, nor foreknowledge, even though there are many proponents to both these points of views. The actual challenge made by the Qur'an is relative to its theological content. The Qur'an itself declares this:

Say, "Then bring a scripture from Allāh which is more guiding than either of them that I may follow it, if you should be truthful." [28:49]

Notice how the verse doesn't say more rhetorically beautiful, more scientific, etc. It clearly mentions guidance as the hallmark of the Qur'an's divinity. One just can't suddenly start preaching monotheism and correct major doctrines in christianity and judaism after spending 40 years surrounded by the shadows of tribalism, illiteracy and arabian polytheism.

All this is a vast subject, one has to carefully study pre-Islamic Arabia to understand why Muhammad can't be the author of the Qur'an. And while doing so, you should always keep in mind that he lived 40 years with the people he later preached Islam to and even waged war against.

A possible objection is to say that this amount to an argument from incredulity or ignorance, along the lines of  "We don't know the Qur'an's source therefore God"... Well, not really a valid objection, for a couple of reasons:

1) We are already assuming God's existence(with some desirable properties) when we are discussing prophets and miracles. And because of that, we have an additional constraint: God won't let someone spread a message in his name and be as successful and believable as Muhammad was. Objecting on the grounds of religious diversity won't help you here, Muslims already acknowledge that elements of Judaism, christianity, and other eastern religions are the remnants of prophetic messages that were divinely inspired. People's free will and their ability to corrupt the prophets' message takes care of the rest.

2) Any position imaginable is vulnerable to incredulity -it's really inevitable simply due to our sentience and incomplete apprehension of reality. If you leave your dog with a portion of meat, lock your house and go for a walk, come back and have trouble finding the meat. It's clear what the conclusion is, your dog is responsible. Here, in this example, one can simply say: you can't imagine another cause of the meat's disappearance, you can't just conclude the dog ate it -incredulity. You can easily see how asinine that would be, a dog is the best explanation of the data at hand, that's it, no need for half-baked hypotheticals.

Similary, the best explanation of (Islam's theological content+various elements of Muhammad's biography+the Qur'an's open challenge explained above, that went unanswered+LOTS of other stuff) WHILE assuming God's existence (again, with some desirable properties) is that Muhammad was divinely inspired. This is, very roughly speaking, our argument.

And the additional additional assumption that revelation is the only way a benevolent ominpotent being can order the universe the way they want. I'm willing to venture out on the limb of accepting that the reality we can observe is actually real, and in that reality natural causes easily account for maternal instincts. All of those arguments from literature are fatally flawed, logically speaking.

As I just explained to @Astreja above, the label "natural causes" as opposed to supernatural cause is a very slippery one. WE ALL KNOW that natural causes can account for materinal instincts, that still doesn't preclude a supernatural intent behind the whole natural process. You can apply the latter sentence in bold to any objection you have to theism on the grounds of "we have natural explanations". You either say a creator of this world(including the natural causes) exists and the content of his creation informs us of his properties, or you don't. What you can't do is to draw this empty distinction between natural causation and supernatural causation as if you have any way to distinguish between the two. 

So, until you adjust your objections above, I suggest you pay a bit more of respect to the fatally flawed literature.

[Fake Messiah]

Until you open your mind to types of evidence other than empirical observation, there is nothing to discuss further relatively to the God question. We all agree, theists and atheists alike, that there is no direct empirical evidence of any supernatural being whatsoever, namely because the distinction natural/supernatural is a meaningless one that somewhat begs the atheist position.

[Ahriman]

Wait, I just noticed Klorophyll is a Muslim. That's really cool. Catholics and Muslims share some theological values.

[Spongebob]

Until you open your mind to types of evidence other than empirical observation, there is nothing to discuss further relatively to the God question. We all agree, theists and atheists alike, that there is no direct empirical evidence of any supernatural being whatsoever, namely because the distinction natural/supernatural is a meaningless one that somewhat begs the atheist position.

Empirical data can only serve as a premise in a posteriori arguments for God's existence -which you are, sadly, allergic to.

OK, so I'm open to other "types" of evidence.  What you got?  Describe your "evidence".  Explain to me how you came to possess it.  Or at least explain your theory.

Ah, you agree there is no empirical evidence for supernatural beings.  Great, we've established some common ground; that's huge!  But wait, the distinction between natural and supernatural is not meaningless, as you say.  It is quite meaningful.  Natural refers to something that we can, by definition, observe or measure in some way.  The term "supernatural" is a bit elusive but it certainly means something that is beyond that which is natural, right?  So that implies that humans would likely not have the ability to observe or measure something supernatural.

No one here is allergic to posteriori arguments.  Science depends on it.  Empirical data is not always a premise for such an argument, it is the grounds on which such an argument is judged.  Einstein used no empirical data to develop his theory of special relativity.  But once technology was developed to test his theory, it was done.  So, to your point, any sort of idea can be imagined and considered whether you have data or not.  But it cannot be evaluated as truthful without some kind of measurement or observation.

[R00tKiT]

Well.. so what? By brain state, I mean any state a human brain can have, whether there is some external stimuli or not. And, to use your definition of delusion above, Muhammad definitely didn't have a delusion. It would really be a very severe mental illness if what he perceived as the angel Gabriel -following him and almost forcing him to recite the Qur'an for 23 years- was a pure product of his own mind, this is simply inconsistent with his career as a social reformer and military leader. 

Someone who experiences a debilitating mental illness generating all kinds of supernatural entities (jinns, angels, heaven and hell, etc.) just can't do what Muhammad did, it doesn't add up.

Well then, if it wasn't a psychopathology, the alternative makes us lean towards the deceit hypothesis.
Personally, I'm fine with that and it is very consistent with the developments during the man's lifetime.

Can you be a bit more specific about "the developments during the man's lifetime" and discuss some actual instances of deceit? 

You can easily find scholarly assessments of the Islamic prophet's career as a social reformer, statesman,etc. being one of the most documented people in history. You won't find any modern orientalist scholar defending your thesis above. The only way to explain Islam's initial explosive expansion is Muhammad's sincere devotion to his message (regardless of the theological question: is he a prophet from God or not) and his ability to stand firmly in the face of armed opposition and prosecution, to suppose otherwise renders Islam's entire development completely incomprehensible. These are not my personal ideas and biases, but actual excerpts from Montgomery Watt's biography of Muhammad.

It matters because it represents what those people very likely are.

No, it doesn't. That's a sad instance of an argumentum ad populum. So, you're fine with joining the masses if they consider some prophet insane?

Insanity is a medical term, and as such, requires professional assessment of the patient, and a full diagnosis of his symptoms. Who cares if people think x is insane or deluded.

Unless this creator entity is consistent and actually passes on its message to everyone, those who claim to have received any such message are probably not portraying reality.

Well, again. Islam tells you just that, the Qur'an is the message and is open to everyone, it's even miraculous on its own - I discussed this point in length above in my response to M. Agenda - regardless of the transmission process.

Imagine a world where there is no Islam. A world where there is no religion. A world where there are no prophets. Also a world wehre there is no science.
This would be the world of our far far ancestors. Our tree dwelling ape-like ancestors.
How does the notion of the divine appear in the ape mind, if that brain can't assume the existence of god?

You seem to argue from the present-day point of view, but I'm concerned with how these things appear in the human psyche.
Remember that I've laid out a rough notion of how it may have happened in a previous post.
You are free to disagree with my hypothetical.

No, actually it's a very good hypothetical.  Our ancestors can surely think a planet or a star are God, but why is this a problem? If we're talking about a just God, God doesn't punish people who made a genuine mistake and were honest. The Qur'an itself recounts how Abraham thought the Moon was God, then turned to the Sun, before finally embracing monotheism.

And those who thought the Moon is God are not really insane ignorant people, a Moon -if God exists- is an instantiation of God's omnipotence, it warrants admiration in its own merits. Our ancestors went a bit too far and worshipped these instantiations instead of the instantiator. A lightning strike is a -vivid- instantiation of God's ability to intervene in the world, or, say, reach any point in the universe, our ancestors posited some God as the agent behind this natural phenomenon -they are not entirely wrong, because even if we managed to explain this phenomenon, there can stll be a supernatural intent behind it.

I thought you said the Qur'an wasn't compiled until years after the man died.... how are you now saying that he dared others to come up with something better?
Anyway, I can give you a pass, assuming that you mean individual texts within the Qur'an.

Concerning witnessed miracles, if people would still not accept them as miracles, then even those unsofisticated people were aware that they were being deceived... probably by some form of illusion.
It's amazing how far the ignorant and gullible have managed to take a deception... to the point of building theocracies that have lasted to the information age.

I discussed the miraculous nature of the Qur'an above, you can check it out if you are interested. Suffice it to say that an illiterate merchant just can't spontaneously utter the finest piece in Arabic literature (and, on the side, leaving a vast collection of highly eloquent hadiths significantly different from the style of the Qur'an), while founding an islamic state, an army, and managing daily political and social problems, in addition to his personal life.

Don't you think that, if that was the case for any prophet, all of mankind would follow it?
Don't you think that the fact that many people at the time of each prophet chose to ignore that prophet's message is a hint that the messages from all prophets have been less than clear and unequivocal? Note that I'm talking about people who were local and contemporaries to the so-called prophets, so culture differences and translation details would not be an issue at all.
If so, then it follows that they are not real prophets, but rather, like I stated in my very first post on this thread, delusional (at best) or deceitful (at worst).

What can possibly be unclear about "worship one god and accept me as a messenger"...........? You forget that most people in history believed in God, they only rejected the prophets for dishonest reasons or because they perceive prophets as a threat to their cultural heritage/social status, etc.
Again, this is an outright argumentum ad populum: if people didn't accept them, then they aren't prophets.............. seriously? Can't people be the problem.....?

Oh wow! Did you really say that the requirement of Islam is "to believe there is one god and that Muhammad is a messenger"?
Can you not see how so self-serving that is for Muhammad?? (and all the priesthood that followed him)

This is exactly the kind of message I would expect from humans wanting to rule over other humans.
Definitely NOT the kind of message from a God who cares about clarity.

And what exctly did Muhammad get because of this requirement? You perceive it as self-serving, I say there is not a single instance in his biography that backs up your assessment.
We know that many members of his family turned against him because of his prophecy, both his parents are condemned to hell (can you imagine a charlatan condemning his own parents to hell), 70 of his most important converts died in a single battle, we also know that many clans of Quraysh ended up issuing a banishment against him and his followers, they were forced to leave to an isolated area where they suffered hunger, some time after, came the Year of Sorrow;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_Sorrow

I can keep going on and on to show you that he didn't personally get anything by claiming prophethood. So how is this self serving in any way??

Because it's the lazy approach?
Because it's way easy for someone (or some group) with ulterior motives to convince the populace of their contact with the pre-believed-in divine.

Well, Muhammad spent 13 years in Mecca without any sort of popular acceptance, I wouldn't personally call his efforts a "lazy approach". And he kept receiving verses and foundaing the Islamic faith alongside reforming the state way after he got to Medina'h.

So tell me. What did this do to Mo's free will? And to Moses'? and all the others?
Not to mention to the free will of the people who followed them?
Assuming, for a small moment, that the god of the Abraham really appeared to these prophets intending for them to pass on the messages we all know, what sort of effect do you think that had on everyone's free will when they have this prepackaged message almost forcing them to behave in a particular way?
If people are free to believe either way, then why do believers place such emphasis on bringing children up on their parents' faith? To erase free will before any critical thinking skills arise, knowing well that children are far more gullible than adults.

It gets worse when the ruling religion takes it upon itself to actually impose the message, squashing free will. See the now infamous Talibans or the Saudis.
Any god worthy of that name and worthy of being considered benevolent would be able to predict the problem with such an approach and go at it differently. And if I, who am most definitely not a god, can imagine a better way, then I'm pretty sure a god would too.

Well, actually, the Qur'an itself tells us that Muhammad did have free will, he was capable of corrupting God's message:
"And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand; Then We would have cut from him the aorta. And there is no one of you who could prevent [Us] from him." [69-:44-48]

As you can see, Muhammad received a warning, just like any prophet or scribe, that corrupting God's message is a grave sin that warrants punishment. This entails that he actually is capable of doing so.
the examples of Taliban or the Saudi government are not very helpful, politics is so closely intertwined with religion that it's hard to learn much. 

If the physical Universe behaved differently in some way, then life would never appear. No one would ever appear in it to make any arguments.

If the physical Universe behaved in such a way that made life a possibility, without being tuned in any way, do you suppose someone could make the case in favor of the fine-tuning argument?
If yes, then I propose that it is a useless argument to make as there is clearly no way of knowing if that Universe is indeed fine tuned.

Although this is a good objection to fine-tuning, for it to have any value, you should first show that the set of  non-fine tuned universes that permit life is not empty. I doubt anybody can do that, until this difficulty is circumvented, my response would simply be: there can't be a physical universe that both permits life AND is not fine-tuned.

[Astreja]

Until you open your mind to types of evidence other than empirical observation, there is nothing to discuss further relatively to the God question.

If your evidence isn't good enough for us, we're still going to keep telling you that. You don't get to blather about the supernatural without getting serious pushback.

Until an agnostic finds some plausible answer, he should keep checking doors (religions)...

Why? Why should someone bother wasting their time over and over again, looking for something that they sincerely do not expect to find anywhere in the whole fucking universe? I reject your "should."