Even if theism is a failure, it's still superior to atheism

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, your biggest issue isn't that it degrades women. Major LOL.

I'm out.

Legal adult pornography with participants who are not being forced into it, is none of your business. It is unrealistic about real relationships, yes. But how much of any other on screen stuff is realistic RootKit? Do you think cops in real life solve every crime in an hour? Do you think romance reflects the movies you see in theatres? Do you think gun violence in tv and movies are how you should handle firearms?

Rootkit, women who partake in LEGAL adult porn that is regulated, and the women who like being in the industry, in safe conditions should not be stigmatized. Vulgar to me is how religion treats women.

Of course it’s none of his business. Are you surprised? That what religionist DO, for fuck’s sake - clutch their pearls over things that are none of their business.

Boru

[R00tKiT]

Al-Ghazali's book The incoherence is really not a cakewalk, so don't blame me if I didn't understand all the material there. I know enough though to tell there is nothing in this particular book speaking against arguing for qur'anic miracles.

Yes, like all apologists, he twists the verses until they agree with what he already knows.

I'm sorry but you have to do better than lay out platitudes about theologians, especially when it comes to an established authority like Al-Ghazali. You'll have to actually come up with a particular verse, together with Al-Ghazali's analysis of it, and point out where you think he did the purported twisting.

And besides, as someone who probably doesn't understand the Arabic language nor ever studied any Arabic text, you are far from being qualified to criticize Al-Ghazali's exegesis of the Qur'an, or any exegesis of it, for that matter.

Again, the Quran is wrong because it makes truth claims about a deity

Since when religious texts become wrong simply because they contain utterances about a deity ? Even logical positivists, who take the most extreme position against religious language, say that religious utterances are inherently meaningless, not false or wrong, just meaningless. The only position you can take is that the Qur'an's supernatural claims are unfalsifiable or unproven, that's very, very different from saying that the Qur'an is false or wrong. If you insist on the latter, then the burden of proof is on you to prove that the claims on the Qur'an are factually false, e.g. that their logical negation is true: that God positively doesn't exist, that the angel Gabriel positively doesn't exist, etc, etc.

Good luck.  

Being Muslim is NOT the same as 'believing the truth'. Those metaphysical assumptions and adherence to the Quran are precisely where things go wrong. The correctness of the proof is useless if the assumptions are invalid.

The metaphysical assumptions of the Qur'an are not the topic here, so please don't change the topic, we're only concerned with the inevitability of the articles of faith when the assumptions are accepted. 

Again, once you grant the assumptions, some assertions become inevitably true, and you can't reject them because you think it's ((fundamentalist)) to accept them, which is what you're trying to do here.

[polymath257]

Yes, like all apologists, he twists the verses until they agree with what he already knows.

I'm sorry but you have to do better than lay out platitudes about theologians, especially when it comes to an established authority like Al-Ghazali. You'll have to actually come up with a particular verse, together with Al-Ghazali's analysis of it, and point out where you think he did the purported twisting.

And besides, as someone who probably doesn't understand the Arabic language nor ever studied any Arabic text, you are far from being qualified to criticize Al-Ghazali's exegesis of the Qur'an, or any exegesis of it, for that matter.

Again, the Quran is wrong because it makes truth claims about a deity

Since when religious texts become wrong simply because they contain utterances about a deity ? Even logical positivists, who take the most extreme position against religious language, say that religious utterances are inherently meaningless, not false or wrong, just meaningless. The only position you can take is that the Qur'an's supernatural claims are unfalsifiable or unproven, that's very, very different from saying that the Qur'an is false or wrong. If you insist on the latter, then the burden of proof is on you to prove that the claims on the Qur'an are factually false, e.g. that their logical negation is true: that God positively doesn't exist, that the angel Gabriel positively doesn't exist, etc, etc.

Good luck.  

Being Muslim is NOT the same as 'believing the truth'. Those metaphysical assumptions and adherence to the Quran are precisely where things go wrong. The correctness of the proof is useless if the assumptions are invalid.

The metaphysical assumptions of the Qur'an are not the topic here, so please don't change the topic, we're only concerned with the inevitability of the articles of faith when the assumptions are accepted. 

Again, once you grant the assumptions, some assertions become inevitably true, and you can't reject them because you think it's ((fundamentalist)) to accept them, which is what you're trying to do here.

I really could not care less about exegesis of the Quran or Bible or any other religious text. They are all mythology and rather useless for determining truth.

Yes, if you make false assumptions, you will deduce false conclusions. That is why theism is always a failure.

As for the impossibility of God: first define, precisely, what you mean by 'God'. For example, if you say that 'God' is the same as the 'universe', then I agree that God exists. But a *supernatural God* is an impossibility. if you believe otherwise, give a precise definition of 'natural' and 'supernatural' as well and we can discuss.

[R00tKiT]

I really could not care less about exegesis of the Quran or Bible or any other religious text. 

And yet you accused a highly acclaimed scholar of twisting the verses of the central religious text to fit his needs, this is an extremely serious accusation that requires formidable evidence. I guess I'll just ignore from now on what you said about al-Ghazali and fundamentalism.

Yes, if you make false assumptions, you will deduce false conclusions.

That's actually not true. I recall you have a solid background in math, and so you must know that false propositions can in principle lead to true propositions.

0=1 leads to 0=0 when we multiply both sides by 0, and yet "0=1" is a false proposition, but 0=0 is true. 

But sure, false assumptions are not a reliable way to apprehend reality. The thing is, you actually have to prove that they are false. Remember, the burden of proof is on you because you're asserting that some assumptions are false.

As for the impossibility of God: first define, precisely, what you mean by 'God'. 

God : a personal creator of the universe, -and hence outside of the universe, that is omnipotent and omniscient.

Prove it's impossible for this creator to exist. Good luck.

 if you believe otherwise, give a precise definition of 'natural' and 'supernatural' as well and we can discuss.

I don't think this natural/supernatural distinction has much interest, despite its frequent occurence in this kind of discussions. The term "natural", in this context, might stand for anything that is not the product of human intelligence, and sometimes it's defined as anything that isn't the product of any intelligence, which obviously smuggles the conclusion that theism is false.

So, these words are semantic games that can be very misleading, and sometimes make it easier for the atheist to smuggle the conclusions they want.

[Jehanne]

0=1 leads to 0=0 when we multiply both sides by 0, and yet "0=1" is a false proposition, but 0=0 is true.

If p -> q, then whenever p is false, then p->q will always be true. And, so, what's your point?

[Angrboda]

0=1 leads to 0=0 when we multiply both sides by 0, and yet "0=1" is a false proposition, but 0=0 is true.

If p -> q, then whenever p is false, then p->q will always be true.  And, so, what's your point?

I think his point is that while he understands logical principles in the abstract, he's hopelessly incapable of applying them in the concrete.

[polymath257]

I really could not care less about exegesis of the Quran or Bible or any other religious text. 

And yet you accused a highly acclaimed scholar of twisting the verses of the central religious text to fit his needs, this is an extremely serious accusation that requires formidable evidence. I guess I'll just ignore from now on what you said about al-Ghazali and fundamentalism.

Anything involving prophecy being realized, outside of science, is making stuff up.

The effect of Al Ghazali's teachings were the decline of the Arabic Golden age and the adoption of an attitude that makes actual intellectual progress impossible. Closing the gates of ijtihad is one of the many things that lead to the decline of the Islamic civilization.

[

Yes, if you make false assumptions, you will deduce false conclusions.

That's actually not true. I recall you have a solid background in math, and so you must know that false propositions can in principle lead to true propositions.

0=1 leads to 0=0 when we multiply both sides by 0, and yet "0=1" is a false proposition, but 0=0 is true. 

But sure, false assumptions are not a reliable way to apprehend reality. The thing is, you actually have to prove that they are false. Remember, the burden of proof is on you because you're asserting that some assumptions are false.

If you use false assumptions, you are guaranteed that some of your conclusions will be false. If you use contradictory assumptions, you can prove *every* statement, true or false.

As for the impossibility of God: first define, precisely, what you mean by 'God'. 

God : a personal creator of the universe, -and hence outside of the universe, that is omnipotent and omniscient.

Prove it's impossible for this creator to exist. Good luck.

What, precisely, do you mean by the term 'universe'? I define it as the collection of all that exists. So there cannot be anything that exists outside of it.

If you have a different definition, please give it.

 if you believe otherwise, give a precise definition of 'natural' and 'supernatural' as well and we can discuss.

I don't think this natural/supernatural distinction has much interest, despite its frequent occurence in this kind of discussions. The term "natural", in this context, might stand for anything that is not the product of human intelligence, and sometimes it's defined as anything that isn't the product of any intelligence, which obviously smuggles the conclusion that theism is false.

So, these words are semantic games that can be very misleading, and sometimes make it easier for the atheist to smuggle the conclusions they want.

So you don't consider humans and human creations to be part of the natural world? Strange definition.

So is God the product of human intelligence? No. So God is natural by your definition. Hence God is NOT outside of the natural world.

Requiring precision of language means that theists can't use their ambiguous terminology to twist meanings and confuse things. That isn't 'smuggling the conclusions', it is staying precise and careful in our reasoning.

[Deesse23]

Prove it's impossible for this creator to exist. Good luck.

Prove that its impossible for universe farting pixies to exist. Good luck

After all this time, havent you learned that making unfalsifiable claims leads you nowhere? After all this time, havent you learned even this?

[Jehanne]

This makes me feel good:



Wikipedia -- Rainbow Bridge

I wish that it were true, but recognize that believing something to be true does not cause it to be true.  Ditto for "hope" or "faith".  But, still, it's so sweet!!

P.S. Look closely and note the guardrails on the bridge!

[R00tKiT]

0=1 leads to 0=0 when we multiply both sides by 0, and yet "0=1" is a false proposition, but 0=0 is true.

If p -> q, then whenever p is false, then p->q will always be true.  And, so, what's your point?

It's not the truth value of the assertion "p->q" that is of interest here, it's only that of q. When you start by a false propostion p, you can sometimes get a true propostion q by employing sound logical principles. This means that we cannot say that q is false just because p is false, we have to evaluate q on its own merits. The part in bold is extremely important here. polymath claimed that starting with false assumptions leads to false conclusions, and this isn't always true.

On a personal note, I completed a Master's degree in mathematical statistics 3 years ago, so for anyone here who just wants to show me high school math, like how material conditionals work, you really can save your breath.

Anything involving prophecy being realized, outside of science, is making stuff up.

The effect of Al Ghazali's teachings were the decline of the Arabic Golden age and the adoption of an attitude that makes actual intellectual progress impossible. Closing the gates of ijtihad is one of the many things that lead to the decline of the Islamic civilization.

Trying to change the topic again? You just accused al-Ghazali of twisting the meaning of Qur'anic verses without providing us any concrete examples. Then when you were pressed to give one, you said you don't care, then you moved on to discuss the effects of Al-Ghazali's teachings, which you clearly never read anything about?

Furthermore, you don't seem to understand what the word "ijtihad" means, it means applying the basic elements of islamc faith and jurisprudence in order to assess, for a given contemporary issue, whether it conforms to islamic rulings/sharia or not. This activity is done routinely by Muslim scholars, all over the world, every single day and hour. The claim of "closing the gates of Ijtihad" appeared in the 3rd/4th century (in the Islamic calendar) when many amateur Muslim thinkers tried to solve legal questions of Islamic jurisprudence independently, this became a widespread phenomenon, and the ijtihad profession was threatened by the flawed work of unqualified people (think about modern-day crackpots that send papers to renowned physics journals, claiming that general relativity is wrong, or that they have a theory of everything). Some Muslim scholars reacted strongly to this and suggested to stop the ijtihad altogether, as a prophylactic measure. This suggestion was obviously abandoned later on in most, if not all Sunni schools.

Al-Ghazali never spoke in any of his books against the ijtihad, this is the second time you make unsubstantiated accusations against al-Ghazali. You're really lucky the members here are essentially ignorant of Islam.

If you use false assumptions, you are guaranteed that some of your conclusions will be false. 

That's true. So not all conclusions that derive from these assumptions are false. This means that we cannot dismiss a conclusion simply because the initial assumption is false. 

What, precisely, do you mean by the term 'universe'? I define it as the collection of all that exists. So there cannot be anything that exists outside of it.

If you have a different definition, please give it.

If you define it like that, then obviously the creator belongs to the universe, but this definition is not really useful here. Better definitions of the universe would be : anything that is accessible to empirical investigation, or all matter that obeys the physical laws. I am not sure if these definitions are watertight, but they should be enough for this discussion.

So you don't consider humans and human creations to be part of the natural world? Strange definition.

I defined natural as anything that isn't the product of human intelligence. And humans are obviously not the product of human intelligence, they're the product of human reproduction. Therefore, this definition does include humans as part of the natural world.

So is God the product of human intelligence? No. So God is natural by your definition. Hence God is NOT outside of the natural world.

This does follow from the definition I gave, and so it's probably not sufficient for our purposes here. But even granting that the deity is part of the natural world doesn't really mean anything. The natural/supernatural distinction is completely arbitrary.

Probably a better the definition of nature, or the natural world, would be exactly like that of the universe - all matter that obeys the physical laws.