So why doesn't God write in the sky?

[ddarko]

But do Muslims think that God “pretended that Christ died on the cross”? Where do you find this in Muslim teaching?

Also, where do you find in Muslim teaching that God does not deceive? If it was a “trick” in the Islamic view, it was a trick played on the wicked people who tried to play Jesus. I don’t think that the Islamic view of God rules out the possibility that God might deceive the wicked. That is in fact one of the disturbing aspects of Islamic theology as I understand it.

Edwin

Actually they believe that Christ did not die. They have a nice story of how the whole thing was just a facade and Christ went straight to heaven.

The deception part, as far as I’ve studied and from my discussions with my fellow Muslim colleagues, it doesn’t appear to be consistent with there theology. But then again, they have a wide range of belief camps haha.

If they indeed do believe that God can deceive people away from salvation, then there might be an objection along the lines of the moral adequacy of the Islamic God. I’ve heard some of these arguments before but don’t remember them off the top of my head

God Bless

 

[Soulewolf]

lol oh hello

so how do you know that all you need is an “need an educated approximation of what truth is.”? Please use your intelligence before you make stupid comments like this.

God Bless

thats… not even an argument… thats just insulting me…

and i know because theres always another side of the story, so you gotta assume the one that makes the most sense, that is approximate which one holds the most truth.

 

[Contarini]

It’s asinine to think that just because all humans are forced to make a handful of necessary assumptions in order to function, this means that no claim ever needs to have evidence to support it. There’s an old, old game in the land of theology called “Make everything into faith.”

Aquinas is fairly old, and he certainly didn’t play that game.

Also, you are making the common error of assuming that faith means “believing without evidence.” Again, Aquinas would say that faith is believing when the evidence is not entirely conclusive, which is quite different. The level of evidence does not support the firmness of our belief, but that doesn’t mean that there is no evidence.

I disagree with Aquinas’s opinion that God’s existence could be proven with certainty, by the way.

Now, what’s that, you say? God is a necessary assumption to you? You have a special means of detecting “reality” that’s not available to everyone else and can’t be confirmed by any means of inquiry into the world outside your head? That’s great, guys. Have fun with your fantasy life, but before you do, pause and consider that what we’ve been discussing on this thread are claims. People make claims to others because they want to convince other people of something.

The flaw in your argument is that belief in God is not a “private” assumption–it is shared by many, perhaps most, human beings. (Note that I am talking about belief in “God,” not belief in “a god”–the two are different, contrary to the assumption of many atheists.)

Edwin

 

[ddarko]

thats… not even an argument… thats just insulting me…

Yea most likely true. The quality of my replies will start to match the quality of your arguments, so please take the time to verify, if you are making a post, that what you are saying is actually countering what I say. That was the umpteenth time you posted something like that without seeing the obvious objections.

God Bless

 

[Soulewolf]

Yea most likely true. The quality of my replies will start to match the quality of your arguments, so please take the time to verify, if you are making a post, that what you are saying is actually countering what I say. That was the umpteenth time you posted something like that without seeing the obvious objections.

God Bless

your “obvious objections” are less obvious to me. maybe you would like to point them out?

 

[Kaninchen]

I am not pretending its about anything. My point is that AS LONG AS IT IS ABOUT SOMETHING be it TRUTH, EXPLANATION, MODEL, you have to have FAITH first. Pretty basic stuff here. Please take the time to read the two links I posted for AntiTheist as well. Might help you understand my position better.

The point is that it really does depend on what one means by words like ‘faith’, hence my use of terms like ‘certainty’ and ‘tentative’. You are arguing that a kind of ‘tentative trust’ is the equivalent of ‘certainty’, which it isn’t.

Of course. Which is why you can only terminate this regress WITH FAITH. In fact, the need to terminate it, it-self comes from FAITH in a notion that we must move forward in knowledge or something equivalent.

But we’re now a long way from the logico-rational grand discernment of truth that you’ve been saying is your guide to everything.

Hey, I’ve been quoting exactly what you wrote. There is no interpretation when I press the button “QUOTE”. So to me, all you’ve been trying to tell me is that "Science is different because it has testable hypothesis. While the difference is correct it does not mean that Science requires no faith. It has already pre-suppossed its required rules (empirical method, induction through faith.

Well, here we are with an example of what I was talking about. You want a discussion with an “inductivist/verificationist” so, for you, I’m a “inductivist/verificationist” - when, if you’d been reading what I’d said it ought to be very, very clear, not to say completely, blindingly obvious to you that I’m not!

Haha, how about…, you lay down your position POINT by POINT.

To somebody who can’t spot the blindingly obvious?

So far from what you’ve said, you seem to be under the illusion that “Science doesn’t need faith”. Please PLEASE PLEASE correct me if I am wrong?

On the other hand if you agree that “Science does need faith”, then you’ve wasted my time by not understanding that it has been my position all along

I’m just searching for some clarity in your arguments rather than continual statements of how clever you are.

 

[ddarko]

thats… not even an argument… thats just insulting me…

and i know because theres always another side of the story, so you gotta assume the one that makes the most sense, that is approximate which one holds the most truth.

Come on. Are you this slow?

So how do you know that “theres always another side of the story, so you gotta assume the one that makes the most sense, that is approximate which one holds the most truth” and that it is true? Its an infinite regress. At one point you HAVE to terminate it with FAITH (without evidence).

That is a simple point man and if you can’t get it after all these posts, I am not sure whats gonna do it for you.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

The point is that it really does depend on what one means by words like ‘faith’, hence my use of terms like ‘certainty’ and ‘tentative’. You are arguing that a kind of ‘tentative trust’ is the equivalent of ‘certainty’, which it isn’t.

Oh… you only have a tentative trust ? Why don’t you go jump off a cliff then since you only have a tentative trust.

But we’re now a long way from the logico-rational grand discernment of truth that you’ve been saying is your guide to everything.

Ha?

Well, here we are with an example of what I was talking about. You want a discussion with an “inductivist/verificationist” so, for you, I’m a “inductivist/verificationist” - when, if you’d been reading what I’d said it ought to be very, clear, not to say completely, blindingly obvious to you that I’m not!

WELL IF YOU ARE NOT, YOU ARE WASTING MY TIME BY NOT UNDERSTANDING I AM NOT EITHER.

To somebody who can’t spot the blindingly obvious?

lol. Its blindingly obvious that you are arguing for the sake of argument from what you stated above. The very definition of a TROLL.

I’m just searching for some clarity in your arguments rather than continual statements of how clever you are.

Haha I am not the clever one. But you certainly aren’t the bright one

God Bless

 

[Kaninchen]

Ha? Ok from your profile it appears that you are Jewish. If you want this to be a debate about your religion vs. mine then please open a new thread. I would be happy to debate you

Well I can say something but what I say can have many implications. Its these implications I refer to than what they intend to say.

As I said above, you seem to want to debate on Judaism vs. Christianity or something along the lines of comparing religions. That is obviously not the topic here. Please open a thread and we can talk about this more

God Bless

Sorry, but what I’m actually trying to do is to get an appreciation of the mechanics of the great logical processes that allow you to make the statements about whatever you’re talking about at the time.

Saying ‘I can discern truths/quantities of truths between bodies of knowledge/religions whatever because I’m a great logical rational thinker’, over and over again isn’t a help to those who would want to rise to such heights. We’d like to know the processes by which, for example, you demarcate between quantities of truths in religions.

 

[Kaninchen]

Oh… you only have a tentative trust ? Why don’t you go jump off a cliff then since you only have a tentative trust.

Ha?

WELL IF YOU ARE NOT, YOU ARE WASTING MY TIME BY NOT UNDERSTANDING I AM NOT EITHER.

lol. Its blindingly obvious that you are arguing for the sake of argument from what you stated above. The very definition of a TROLL.

Haha I am not the clever one. But you certainly aren’t the bright one

God Bless

Well, there’s a lot of logical rational coherence there.

 

[ddarko]

Sorry, but what I’m actually trying to do is to get an appreciation of the mechanics of the great logical processes that allow you to make the statements about whatever you’re talking about at the time.

Saying ‘I can discern truths/quantities of truths between bodies of knowledge/religions whatever because I’m a great logical rational thinker’, over and over again isn’t a help to those who would want to rise to such heights. We’d like to know the processes by which, for example, you demarcate between quantities of truths in religions.

As I said, if a religion is logically inconsistent, its FALSE. If a religion has more explanatory power over another, then it is more likely true.

Judaism for an example is a religions of laws. Pretty similar to Islam actually. But Christianity offers reasons for the laws of Judaism. Christianity is the fulfillment of the covenant God made with the Israelite. Now its ok. You are still doing the right thing and you will be saved. But your truth is just incomplete.

This is not that hard for people to understand and apply. I know lots of my colleagues who have used this process to evaluate ones own religion and move on. Most of my friends from Iran simply chose to be atheist because there evaluation of Islam prove to them that it was logically inconsistent. Unfortunately they refuse to evaluate any other religion for that matter because of the phobia towards religion that has occurred due to there experience with Islam.

Never the less, if someone is objective, its pretty easy to evaluate a religion if you have a strong background in logic and are willing to study the intricacies of your religion.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Well, there’s a lot of logical rational coherence there.

Yea you are suppossed to read them with the corresponding text I quoted O bright one lol. I would have thought that was obvious

God Bless

 

[Kaninchen]

As I said, if a religion is logically inconsistent, its FALSE. If a religion has more explanatory power over another, then it is more likely true.

Judaism for an example is a religions of laws. Pretty similar to Islam actually. But Christianity offers reasons for the laws of Judaism. Christianity is the fulfillment of the covenant God made with the Israelite. Now its ok. You are still doing the right thing and you will be saved. But your truth is just incomplete.

Again, this is ‘argument through repeated assertion’, it’s not an explanation of the demarcation process.

Never the less, if someone is objective, its pretty easy to evaluate a religion if you have a strong background in logic and are willing to study the intricacies of your religion.

God Bless

If it’s ‘pretty easy’, describe how it’s done.

 

[Kaninchen]

Yea you are suppossed to read them with the corresponding text I quoted O bright one lol. I would have thought that was obvious

God Bless

I make no claims about brightness.

 

[Contarini]

Actually they believe that Christ did not die. They have a nice story of how the whole thing was just a facade and Christ went straight to heaven.

Yes, I know that. I am not sure how authoritative this belief is. The Qur’an says something like “the Jews thought they had killed him.” However, some Muslims appear to interpret this to mean " they thought they had finished him for good"–in other words, consistently with our belief in the resurrection. I think that the conception of Jesus being snatched up to heaven without dying comes from the hadith, which would make it quite authoritative for orthodox Muslims if it’s in one of the standard collections. Or it may be a less authoritative tradition–I’m not sure.

The deception part, as far as I’ve studied and from my discussions with my fellow Muslim colleagues, it doesn’t appear to be consistent with there theology.

I would certainly like to understand the matter better. I am going to be breaking the fast this evening with some Muslims, and I may ask them if I get the chance. But it may be too heavy a subject to raise with people I don’t know very well.

If they indeed do believe that God can deceive people away from salvation, then there might be an objection along the lines of the moral adequacy of the Islamic God.

Certainly such objections have been made. Of course, such objections can be made to the view of God found in the Bible as well. . . .

The problem of why, if God is omnipotent, everyone is not saved is a problem for all monotheists who are not universalists (and even universalists have to explain why the path to salvation is so long and tortuous). The “free will” answer may be the best one possible, but it’s not as simple as many people assume. There are certainly passages of Scripture (such as the “hardening of Pharaoh,” particularly as interpreted by Paul) which would support a very disturbing understanding of God’s agency in dealing with the wicked. And there’s that passage in Jeremiah 12 talking about God deceiving him, which Origen understood to mean that God employs Platonic “noble lies.” Certainly a nicer view than the view that God deceives the wicked for their own destruction, but also raising problems.

The problem with arguments against “the moral adequacy of the Islamic God” is that both Islamic and Christian concepts of God vary widely, as you pointed out with regard to Islam. I think it’s fair to say that generally Islamic views of God are somewhat more likely to be found toward the darker end of the spectrum than Christian views, but there’s a huge amount of overlap.

Edwin

 

[Kaninchen]

Since Shabbat approaches, let me leave you with this thought:

He has told you, O man, what is good,
And what the LORD requires of you:
Only to do justice
And to love goodness.
And to walk modestly with your God;
Then will your name achieve wisdom.

Micah 6:8

 

[ddarko]

Yes, I know that. I am not sure how authoritative this belief is. The Qur’an says something like “the Jews thought they had killed him.” However, some Muslims appear to interpret this to mean " they thought they had finished him for good"–in other words, consistently with our belief in the resurrection. I think that the conception of Jesus being snatched up to heaven without dying comes from the hadith, which would make it quite authoritative for orthodox Muslims if it’s in one of the standard collections. Or it may be a less authoritative tradition–I’m not sure.

Yea it has varied from which part of the Muslim world the person is from also.

I would certainly like to understand the matter better. I am going to be breaking the fast this evening with some Muslims, and I may ask them if I get the chance. But it may be too heavy a subject to raise with people I don’t know very well.

Probably not a great idea unless they know you well haha.

Certainly such objections have been made. Of course, such objections can be made to the view of God found in the Bible as well. . . .

The problem of why, if God is omnipotent, everyone is not saved is a problem for all monotheists who are not universalists (and even universalists have to explain why the path to salvation is so long and tortuous). The “free will” answer may be the best one possible, but it’s not as simple as many people assume. There are certainly passages of Scripture (such as the “hardening of Pharaoh,” particularly as interpreted by Paul) which would support a very disturbing understanding of God’s agency in dealing with the wicked. And there’s that passage in Jeremiah 12 talking about God deceiving him, which Origen understood to mean that God employs Platonic “noble lies.” Certainly a nicer view than the view that God deceives the wicked for their own destruction, but also raising problems.

Aah, yes. But with respect to those things, I belong to the free will / Molinist camp of thought. From that perspective, I find these passages are not that hard to reconcile with omnipotence as well as omniscience.

The problem with arguments against “the moral adequacy of the Islamic God” is that both Islamic and Christian concepts of God vary widely, as you pointed out with regard to Islam. I think it’s fair to say that generally Islamic views of God are somewhat more likely to be found toward the darker end of the spectrum than Christian views, but there’s a huge amount of overlap.

Yes, I agree. From what I understand, the Islamic religion is more about following a law than having a relationship with God. It does tend to have more of a darker view of God as well.

There are some interesting debates by Dr. William Lane Craig with Islamic scholars which you might find very interesting.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Since Shabbat approaches, let me leave you with this thought:

He has told you, O man, what is good,
And what the LORD requires of you:
Only to do justice
And to love goodness.
And to walk modestly with your God;
Then will your name achieve wisdom.

Micah 6:8

Thanks

But if you meant this as a way of asking me to be modest, you must know that I am really not trying to tell you I am smart. I am simply asking you to see the truth. If you do use incorrect logic I can only point it out. And if I see that you continuously make a logical error I also have to point it out. For an example, if a friend told you that 1 + 1 is surely 5, would you not try to convince them how wrong they are at all costs? How would you react when after a long discussion, the person still stubbornly says that his/her view is more logical than yours? So I am not trying to be immodest but simply trying to be honest with you

So don’t take it the wrong way okey

Have a good Shabbat!

God Bless

 

[Kaninchen]

Thanks

But if you meant this as a way of asking me to be modest, you must know that I am really not trying to tell you I am smart. I am simply asking you to see the truth. If you do use incorrect logic I can only point it out. I am not a relativist.

So don’t take it the wrong way.

Have a good Shabbat.

God Bless

Not quite Shabbat.

Now, how would one demarcate the ‘truth’ that you’re ‘simply asking’ me ‘to see’?

What are the demarcation criteria that it would be necessary to use for me to ascertain whether 1) everything is just a matter of logic - without a context of premises and test; and 2) that you are the arbiter of whether you are the apex of discernment of the context of the argument and logicality?

Perhaps if you stopped considering everybody else an idiot (whether we are all idiots or not being beside the point), it might be easier for you to explain such things so that the rest of us might understand?

 

[ddarko]

Not quite Shabbat.

Now, how would one demarcate the ‘truth’ that you’re ‘simply asking’ me ‘to see’?

What are the demarcation criteria that it would be necessary to use for me to ascertain whether 1) everything is just a matter of logic - without a context of premises and test; and 2) that you are the arbiter of whether you are the apex of discernment of the context of the argument and logicality?

Perhaps if you stopped considering everybody else an idiot (whether we are all idiots or not being beside the point), it might be easier for you to explain such things so that the rest of us might understand?

Ok first let get one thing straight. This debate is not on me proving that your religion is true over mine or vice versa. This is not about comparative religions.

My point was that “All knowledge needs faith i.e. Faith is the basis of all knowledge”. I continuously stated this multiple times to you as well. I am only defending faith here, nothing else.

Where this leads us is a different debate which seems to be the one you are stuck on.

And I also don’t think you are an idiot.

God Bless