Hey, I'm new

[theVOID]

Theism can be as rational as anything can be rational...

Sure, if you have a sound epistemology and lack data - I suspect it is the exact opposite, you have an incoherent epistemology and the same data we do.

It depends which kind of theism you have dealt with before. There are two kinds of theism, rational and irrational.

Please, do present us with a rational argument for theism.

You're almost correct. I do believe that Islam is the religion of Abraham as mentioned in Quran. Unfortunately most Muslims don't. To them Mohammed is the most important prophet. To me all prophets are equal.

Which is what exactly?

How old do you think the earth is?

Do apostates go to hell?

etc.

I believe in this God, because this God has provided me with substantial evidences that He is the One God.

What evidence?

And, I don't believe that Jesus was god, neither do I believe in the Trinity. I believe that Jesus was a prophet. And so was Mohammed.

Why do you believe this?

[therationalist]

Sure, if you have a sound epistemology and lack data - I suspect it is the exact opposite, you have an incoherent epistemology and the same data we do.

any creature will need epistemology to prove his point- as creatures are limited with knowledge, unlike the creator. I believe I have a sound epistemology and some very important data that you may lack. I will clarify below.

Please, do present us with a rational argument for theism.

"something comes out of something and nothing comes out of nothing"
this means that for something to exist, something must have existed all the time, powerful enough to need no beginning. it cannot be anything natural, but it has to be an all powerful God, my dear.

Which is what exactly?

How old do you think the earth is?

Do apostates go to hell?

etc.

I solely believe in Quran (word of God) as the only guidance. Most Muslims believe in man-made hadiths, which to me, clearly contradicts the Quran. They also misinterpret the Quran to justify their false beliefs- which end of the day is presented to you and that's how you wrongly perceive Islam.

Good question, I believe the earth is app. 4.5 billion years old like most Muslims do as it is more coherent with Quran, and also is what modern science tells.

Not only apostates but most of the people will go to hell, including most of the Muslims. If this sounds unfair to you, then ask me to clarify...

What evidence?

God has put his signature in the Quran, that is the mathematical miracle of 19.(http://submission.org/quran/app1.html) And also many scientific miracles.

Why do you believe this?

"

Because it says so in Quran. I already mentioned why I have to believe the Quran. Men corrupted Christianity to something Jesus never preached.

[5:72] Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah himself said, "O Children of Israel, you shall worship GOD; my Lord and your Lord." Anyone who sets up any idol beside GOD, GOD has forbidden Paradise for him, and his destiny is Hell. The wicked have no helpers.

[5:73] Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is a third of a trinity. There is no god except the one god. Unless they refrain from saying this, those who disbelieve among them will incur a painful retribution.

you asked so many q. at once that its hard to answer them all descriptively.[/quote]

[theVOID]

any creature will need epistemology to prove his point- as creatures are limited with knowledge, unlike the creator. I believe I have a sound epistemology and some very important data that you may lack. I will clarify below.

Without an epistemology you simply cannot be consistent in your beliefs, nor can you expose your cognitive biases to anywhere near the same extent.

"something comes out of something and nothing comes out of nothing"
this means that for something to exist, something must have existed all the time, powerful enough to need no beginning. it cannot be anything natural, but it has to be an all powerful God, my dear.

From nothing, nothing comes. Fine - I don't believe nothing to be possible.

However, Going from "Something always existed -> It can't be natural (why?) -> God" is a complete non sequitur, you have not reasoned your way to that conclusion at all. There is also no relationship between non-contingency and magnitudes of power - I would argue that the more 'power' (abilities) the thing has the less likely it is to exist as a brute fact, but that aside, there is no reason why something that always exists necessarily has great power.

Let me demonstrate what you have so far:

1. Something always existed (sound).
2. That which always exists must be powerful (unsound).
3. It cannot be natural (unsound).
4. Therefore, God. (invalid).

As you can see, you don't have an argument yet, you have two unsupported premises and a conclusion that does not necessarily follow from the premises even if we were to accept them as true, it is horrendously flawed.

I solely believe in Quran (word of God) as the only guidance.

So it is not the literal truth?

By what method do you determine what parts are to be believed?

Most Muslims believe in man-made hadiths, which to me, clearly contradicts the Quran. They also misinterpret the Quran to justify their false beliefs- which end of the day is presented to you and that's how you wrongly perceive Islam.

I'll leave the claims about the Quran's specifics to our resident Muslim Rayaan and Apostate Anatar...

I'll ask this though:

1. How do you know that you aren't the one with false beliefs?
2. How do you know that you aren't the one who is spreading a false perception of islam?

Good question, I believe the earth is app. 4.5 billion years old like most Muslims do as it is more coherent with Quran, and also is what modern science tells.

Are you saying that the Quran supports an old earth? What verses hint at it's age in the billions of years?

Not only apostates but most of the people will go to hell, including most of the Muslims. If this sounds unfair to you, then ask me to clarify...

If you expected me to ask you to clarify then you should have done so, but none the less; Can you clarify that?

God has put his signature in the Quran, that is the mathematical miracle of 19.(http://submission.org/quran/app1.html) And also many scientific miracles.

Oh great, this bullshit again - Sorry, but I've been through this all at length before and it is quite honestly the least convincing and perhaps the most nonsense argument for deity I have ever encountered. You are taking the book you already believe to be divinely inspired and then using an arbitrary literary standard designed post-hoc to fit this specific book, and then when no other work that someone can name fits these specific arbitrary constraints you maintain that it is evidence for the divine - It is nonsense.

I could take a work of Shakespeare and devise some arbitrary standard to fit the book, some post-hoc constraints that are specifically tailored for that book, and then compare the Quran against the constraints designed around Shakespeare and when they do not fit I would be equally (un)justified in claiming that those books are the product of divinity.

These scientific miracles of the Quran have been absolutely refuted time and time again, if you have some specific examples you think are valid then present them individually.

Because it says so in Quran. I already mentioned why I have to believe the Quran. Men corrupted Christianity to something Jesus never preached.

You have given an irrational argument for believing the Quran. Until that is resolved there is no point continuing with all the rest of it.

[Minimalist]

To me all prophets are equal.

Ah...something at last I can agree with. They were all con men.

[tackattack]

Welcome to the forums. Void likes to jump right in there and get to the meat of things doesn't he

[therationalist]

Welcome to the forums. Void likes to jump right in there and get to the meat of things doesn't he

thanks mate... and you're right. Void is into the battle.

---

However, Going from "Something always existed -> It can't be natural (why?) -> God" is a complete non sequitur, you have not reasoned your way to that conclusion at all.

Well, maybe I've not. I told you there were too many questions asked at once.
how would 'something' let's presume it's an object; that exists all the time be natural? iow. what is your presumed natural 'something' that can exist all the time? or is it that you don't know.

There is also no relationship between non-contingency and magnitudes of power - I would argue that the more 'power' (abilities) the thing has the less likely it is to exist as a brute fact, but that aside, there is no reason why something that always exists necessarily has great power.

why do you think that- something that can exist all the time, w/o any beginning (cause if it had a beginning, it would've come out of nothing), do not necessarily has great power or is not a superior being?

So it is not the literal truth?

By what method do you determine what parts are to be believed?

I believe in Quran, because it is the literal truth.
I believe in all the parts of the Quran. The method is simple. History tells that the Quran we find today is the same Quran written by Muhammed during the 6th century.

I'll leave the claims about the Quran's specifics to our resident Muslim Rayaan and Apostate Anatar...

there is more probability that they'll not agree with me, as most of the Muslims don't. But I'm ready to debate rationally.

I'll ask this though:

1. How do you know that you aren't the one with false beliefs?
2. How do you know that you aren't the one who is spreading a false perception of islam?

Because my perceptions are based on the Quran, which was written during Muhammed's life.
Not based on my own made up ideas. Or hadiths that were written 300 years after the death of Mhammed (presumed to be Muhammed's word).

Are you saying that the Quran supports an old earth? What verses hint at it's age in the billions of years?

Yes,

"Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days" (7:54)
but in Quran, use of the Arabic word "youm" (day) is understood to be something different from a normal day. In one case, the measure of a day is equated with 50,000 years (70:4), whereas another verse states that "a day in the sight of your Lord is like 1,000 years of your reckoning" (22:47). so, a day of God's creation should not be percieved as a day, but as long period of time. The universe so was created in six different ages not days.
see, that's why I believe earth can be 4.5 bill. years as estimated by scientists. Quran doesn't say 4.5 bill. exactly but neither does it say anything that's against our established scientific claims. There's nothing unlike the Bible- which says it has to be 6 earthly days.
Here's another important point to note. see how both Quran and Bible states 6 days. it could be because both religion originated from God, but as I already told, Christianity got corrupted after the death of Jesus; maybe there were teachings of Jesus that pointed out that 6 days were not actually our counted six days, but it got removed because of its distortion by men.

If you expected me to ask you to clarify then you should have done so, but none the less; Can you clarify that?

I'm sorry, i just said that because there were too many questions asked at once.
There's a big explanation for this. But I'll try to briefly state it for you. all of us lived in God's kingdom, before the creation of the universe. Then one of God's higher ranking creatures- satan proposed that he can a god beside God. Most of the creatures didn't fall into the trap, but a minority did.
[38:69] "I had no knowledge previously, about the feud in the High Society.
God could've just punished all of them, but he gave them a second chance knowing that majority of them would repent. and they did.
[33:72] We have offered the responsibility (freedom of choice) to the heavens and the earth, and the mountains, but they refused to bear it, and were afraid of it. But the human beings accepted it; he was transgressing, ignorant.
God gave the rest a third and final chance, knowing that still a minority of them will repent after the test of this world. He knew that out of these sinners people like Jesus, Muhammed, Abraham and many other good souls will finally repent and submit to God.
[6:111] Even if we sent down the angels to them; even if the dead spoke to them; even if we summoned every miracle before them; they cannot believe unless GOD wills it. Indeed, most of them are ignorant.
if this is true, then dont you think this minority of transgressing creatures deserve hell after all the chances they've missed. I don't believe we were created for this test, but we chose to take this test.

Oh great, this bullshit again - Sorry, but I've been through this all at length before and it is quite honestly the least convincing and perhaps the most nonsense argument for deity I have ever encountered. [quote]
Well i can see that you have a strong stand against this
You are taking the book you already believe to be divinely inspired and then using an arbitrary literary standard designed post-hoc to fit this specific book, and then when no other work that someone can name fits these specific arbitrary constraints you maintain that it is evidence for the divine - It is nonsense.

I could take a work of Shakespeare and devise some arbitrary standard to fit the book, some post-hoc constraints that are specifically tailored for that book, and then compare the Quran against the constraints designed around Shakespeare and when they do not fit I would be equally (un)justified in claiming that those books are the product of divinity.

Now, aren't you biased now? just because you've heard of this before and were not convinced, you're not going to give it a second chance.

These scientific miracles of the Quran have been absolutely refuted time and time again, if you have some specific examples you think are valid then present them individually.

really??? ok, then refute this for me please...
[51:47] We constructed the sky with our hands, and we will continue to expand it.
did people in 6th century know that the universe is always expanding. then how was it written down in this book.

[theVOID]

Well, maybe I've not. I told you there were too many questions asked at once.

No problem, We'll slow it down a notch.

how would 'something' let's presume it's an object; that exists all the time be natural?

Presume it's an object? No, let's stick to what I actually think okay?

It would necessarily be energy, one of the most fundamental concepts in physics requires as much, the law of the conservation of energy, the energy in an isolated system remains constant. This is commonly stated as "energy cannot be created or destroyed".

iow. what is your presumed natural 'something' that can exist all the time? or is it that you don't know.

Energy.

And even if I didn't have such an immediate and empirically supported answer to your question, you were the one claiming that such a thing (a natural thing) could not always exist - That places the burden of proof squarely in your corner.

why do you think that- something that can exist all the time, w/o any beginning (cause if it had a beginning, it would've come out of nothing), do not necessarily has great power or is not a superior being?

Energy doesn't have a beginning.

We have absolutely no reason to think that something having great 'power' (and I'll need your definition of power) is required for it to always exist. Why does it have to be a being? Persons are amongst the most complex systems in the universe, what makes you think that would be the first thing to exist?

I believe in Quran, because it is the literal truth.

So Muhammed flew around on a winged unicorn? and dunking a fly in your drink is a good way to stay healthy?

I believe in all the parts of the Quran. The method is simple. History tells that the Quran we find today is the same Quran written by Muhammed during the 6th century.

I don't know a hell of a lot about the Quran, but I'll tell you right now I couldn't care less if the Quran hasn't changed, that has absolutely no bearing on it's truth.

Because my perceptions are based on the Quran, which was written during Muhammed's life.
Not based on my own made up ideas.

So you're right they're wrong. Simple, huh?

And the word you're looking for isn't "perceptions" it's "presuppositions".

Or hadiths that were written 300 years after the death of Mhammed (presumed to be Muhammed's word).

I have no problem agreeing here.

"Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days" (7:54)
but in Quran, use of the Arabic word "youm" (day) is understood to be something different from a normal day. In one case, the measure of a day is equated with 50,000 years (70:4), whereas another verse states that "a day in the sight of your Lord is like 1,000 years of your reckoning" (22:47). so, a day of God's creation should not be percieved as a day, but as long period of time. The universe so was created in six different ages not days.

Even at 50,000 years a "Day" you're still short by 4,499,700,000 years.... Hardly the bastion of accuracy there.

see, that's why I believe earth can be 4.5 bill. years as estimated by scientists. Quran doesn't say 4.5 bill. exactly but neither does it say anything that's against our established scientific claims. There's nothing unlike the Bible- which says it has to be 6 earthly days.

The same argument is made by Christians to account for their holy book being wrong. You are not unique here.

Here's another important point to note. see how both Quran and Bible states 6 days. it could be because both religion originated from God, but as I already told, Christianity got corrupted after the death of Jesus; maybe there were teachings of Jesus that pointed out that 6 days were not actually our counted six days, but it got removed because of its distortion by men.

Oh, corrupted huh? According to who?

There's a big explanation for this. But I'll try to briefly state it for you. all of us lived in God's kingdom, before the creation of the universe.

1. How do you know that?
2. Why don't I remember it?
3. You're saying I existed before my birth?

if this is true, then dont you think this minority of transgressing creatures deserve hell after all the chances they've missed. I don't believe we were created for this test, but we chose to take this test.

So what exactly do I have to repent for? And is this a case of "love god or burn"

And isn't it mighty convenient that you have a disclaimer right in there that I'm never going to see this proof of his existence. Yet I'm still expected to conclude he exists? What a farce.

Well i can see that you have a strong stand against this

I've just debated this stuff over and over, I have no interest in doing it again right now - Perhaps another time, for now let's focus on the stuff above.

Now, aren't you biased now? just because you've heard of this before and were not convinced, you're not going to give it a second chance.

Some other time maybe, but I really don't have the patience for you insisting "that nobody can replicate the Quran according to post-hoc constraint x, y and z" and then I say "I don't care, it's not evidence for god doing it, it just shows that when you tailor post hoc requirements to fit one text you likely won't find others to match" and then I'll take some book off my shelf and set up some mathematical constraints for the first few pages and you won't be able to match them and this will go back and forth etc etc..

Once we've gotten through the other stuff bring it up again and I'll debate it, but not right now.

[51:47] We constructed the sky with our hands, and we will continue to expand it.
did people in 6th century know that the universe is always expanding. then how was it written down in this book.

That's a mistranslation ripped straight from an apologetics website - Was that from truth in Islam or some other propaganda mill?

The translation above is mistaken or at best forced. Better translations of the last clause are "we are the ones who enrich it" (Pangloss 2003) or "we it is who made the vast extent" (Pickthall n.d.).

The following verse (51:48) says, "And the earth We have laid out." Suras 51:47-48 appear to be a rough translation of Isaiah 42:5: "Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and what comes from it. . . ." If divine origin is imputed on the basis of these verses, credit should go to the Bible, not the Qur'an.

The expansion interpretation was not noticed until after the expansion of the universe was well known through scientific observations. If Allah meant the Qur'an to indicate an expanding universe, the verse indicates that He was not competent to communicate clearly.

[fr0d0]

1. People who insist that they have such a thing and insult those who question it are fully expected to back up their claims. Notice how he frequently resorts to ad hominem rather than answering the question presented.

I respond to ad-hominem from yourself, but you could see it. I've never seen you demonstrate your own supposed justified position, and indeed, I fail to see evidence of any atheist ever doing so successfully. ie having a coherant and logical epistemology. I therefore conclude that atheism is an intellectually indefensible position.

You try to force people to fit your own requirements, that you then kudos, like you're feeding sea lions. I've rarely seen such self serving ego massaging.

2. Epistemology is not a matter of light disagreement, it is one of reason for which there are right and wrong answers. An epistemology is the single most valuable foundational belief not only because it is key to consistency and eliminating biases, but because it is so plainly open to questioning and refutation.

Indeed

3. Fr0d0's illusion that he is intellectually honest is contingent upon his maintaining that what he considers to be a justified belief (his belief in God) is in fact such. For him to fail to present a valid epistemology would absolutely defeat that proposition - His actions are telling that he does not have one and that is why he is so reluctant to even attempt to present it.

I attempt to answer any question presented. None of those attempts, surprise surprise, would satisfy your own position of strict denial. You refuse to investigate what is suggested to you, but follow your own pursuits and then are surprised not to end up at your chosen destination.

4. The only thing he doesn't want waved over his head that he is an irrational fool with an unjustified belief.

Likewise

[theVOID]

I respond to ad-hominem from yourself, but you could see it. I've never seen you demonstrate your own supposed justified position, and indeed, I fail to see evidence of any atheist ever doing so successfully. ie having a coherant and logical epistemology. I therefore conclude that atheism is an intellectually indefensible position.

You're a little bit backwards there, Atheism is only defensible in absence of a demonstration of a sound and valid epistemology that permits belief in God - If you present that then I am obligated to agree.

I've presented my epistemology, Evidentialist Reliablism, You did not refute it.

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/comesana/evid...bilism.pdf

My beliefs are, so far as I know, consistent with my Epsitemology, at least where I've tested them explicitly against it.

You try to force people to fit your own requirements, that you then kudos, like you're feeding sea lions. I've rarely seen such self serving ego massaging.

Are you going to continue to dodge my requests?

Indeed

So, yours is?

I attempt to answer any question presented. None of those attempts, surprise surprise, would satisfy your own position of strict denial. You refuse to investigate what is suggested to you, but follow your own pursuits and then are surprised not to end up at your chosen destination.

Please, link me to ONE thread where you have presented your epistemology in it's entirety and I promise I will make a thread apologizing for my false accusations.

Likewise

Unlike you I can show a number of instances where I've presented my epistemology, in Both forms, the syllogistic Evidentialist Reliablism and it's Bayesian form.

[fr0d0]

You regurgitate illogical bull shit spouted by others VOID. It didn't make sense for them, and it doesn't make sense for you either. You want me to talk their language of philosophical psycho babble but I have little interest in it. Come back to the real world and deal with it: try to understand what I'm telling you about how I draw my conclusions. By making demands on reason where only your own answers will satisfy you is a far cry from wide openness I'd hope you'd agree.