Debunking God (at least popular religions portrayals) without the use of morals, good vs evil or world justice arguments

[Lev Peshkov]

Both you and @Blackout.xl are discussing about omniscience considering the fact that Calvinism is true, which is a doctrine in Christianity which supports the complete omniscience of God.

I'm pretty sure Blackout.xl argues in support of Arminianism, indicating that libertarian free will exists (at the same time God is sovereign)...

e.g. - if i give someone the choice to eat a dead rat or a pizza... i'm pretty sure the person will choose pizza over the rat. Why? It's because it's an educated guess, considering the person's nature and tastes.

But does that completely eliminate the possibility of the person ending up eating the rat instead of the pizza?
No it doesn't.
He still physically has the choice and ability to eat the rat rather than the pizza.


I've had a divine encounter of God, so I wouldn't want to simply disclose it here where people are arguing over the existence of a 'God' or a 'spiritual realm/world'... since it wouldn't be appropriate. But I agree with blackout.xl's answers ITT.

Hmmm I see

 

[Deleted member 6488]

there is never going to be a way to debunk or confirm god

a god probably does exist but not the ones currently believed like Christianity and Islam

funny enough Darwin was religious until he started learning more and realized how fucking atrociously brutal some animals are, and he came to the conclusion no god who is to be considered “merciful and loving” could of designed such abhorrent creations

an example of an animal he speaks of is a certain type of wasp that paralyzes a caterpillar and lays its eggs in a specific place that the baby wasps can devour the live caterpillar but will not kill it and feed off it for literal weeks while it is alive and paralyzed, suffering the entire time

I completely agree with Darwin on that sentiment, no such loving god exists, but shit like the Big Bang (more specifically the specific timing it happened) requires a god

In science every action has a cause, why did the Big Bang take place 14 billion years ago instead of 100 trillion trillion years? there had to be a cause

but then you get into the issue of who created god and get caught up in the same ever ending paradox

it really is mind boggling to think about, it is the only mystery in my life that I have lived in such ignorance about, but really everyone does, 8 billion people and no one can find an answer

fascinating really

nature can suck on my penis

 

[aestheticallypleasin]

I came into the conclussion that the concept of an all-powerful god can't exist at all, and it's not because of injustice or evil in the world or any other bs.

Emotions are product of chemical-fueled impulses and their nature is to overtake the individual. This already rules out any religion whose god can be angered, can love or can be dissapointed for example, as a god should always remain in absolute control of themselves, which means zero emotion. Some strong emotions also usually come from the (in varying levels) unexpected, so that rules out omniscience either.

Speaking of which, any negative emotion comes from things not being like one would like. If a god is unsatisfied with the current state of things then that god is bound by time. Even if the god has the power to change the thing that dissatisfies them, the fact that there is even one instant in time in which things are not the right way means that this god experiences times in a linear way and is chained by it, otherwise unsatisfying event wouldn't even "take place". Being absolute perfection and creator of existence clashes directly with being tied to the rules of time, as an absolute god is supposed to exist outside of it.

The other reason are the concepts of desire and change. A desire comes, again, from something not being in a state that satisfies you. When I experience the desire to go from point A to point B, that means i'm not already in point B. That means i'm not all powerful, and, like in the former point, i'm bound by the power of time and there is a state of things (me being at point A) that unsatisfies me at a given time. At last, perfection is something (or a state of things) in which ANY change would result in worsening it. For a single entity to be the originator of existence, it should be absolute. Creating the universe we know is an act of change, which shouldn't happen if there was a perfection existing already. That change would then come from a desire (even if we can't comprehend the path/ways of god, any change always comes from a desire or at least a will) which brings us to desire = not perfect again. And the fact that there was no universe at some point and then there is one, again ends with the point of bound-by-time = no perfection/absolute power. In addition, removing time from the equation (because god shouldn't be bound by it) means that there is not a "thought process" going on in order to come up with the will for change, because thoughts and sentience go hand in hand with experiencing time, so god can't be sentient either, as sentience was developed as a means of adaptation and survival in the first place.

So, creation and time are not compatible with a single perfect entity being the all-and-everything. If anything "divine" exists, its definitely not the portrayal of a single sentient entity people usually do of god. This would only leave us with many-gods religions, since those do not need a single absolute entity, but allow for gods to not be perfect, be subjected to rules, and be compatible with time, emotion and change. But polytheist religions sound even more fairytale-like and ridiculous than the monotheistic ones tbh.

dnr a word, you dont know shit

 

[Zyros]

dnr a word, you dont know shit

nice argument

 

[aestheticallypleasin]

nice argument

God does exist u coper. he has been documented on video, in photos etc... some say he is frequently spotted in london

this is what people claiming to have seen god say he looks like

 

[Aesthetics_III]

God's own omnipotence is a paradox in itself, I'm talking about the Abrahamic gods by the way.

Apparently they're all-powerful and know all but if that's so then that must mean they can predict the future and so that means the future is a set time and place thus dismantling the notion of free will.

Moreover, if God can predict the future then it means that he knows some people are simply destined to go to hell and can not be "saved." That is not a loving God.

God exists out of time though. He doesn’t “predict” the future he is seeing the entire timeline in real time/at once

 

[Deleted member 3323]

God exists out of time though. He doesn’t “predict” the future he is seeing the entire timeline in real time/at once

How does this disprove the idea that he can see what's going to happen?

 

[Aesthetics_III]

How does this disprove the idea that he can see what's going to happen?

It doesn’t, it disproves the idea that he views time linearly and so sees our choices before they happen.

Instead he views every choice everyone makes at the same time, hence, he is omnipresent. He is seeing my ancestor put bullets in Nazis (jfl @ that cuck) while equally seeing me shitposting on this forum and rotting.

 

[balding17yomanletcel]

tales from framelet

 

[Edgar]

How

It's a crystal clear explanation, only a moron who doesn't understand it would say something like you just did.

How could you turn against a fellow acnecel brother?!
Et tu Brute?

 

[Baldingman1998]

High iq

 

[Deleted member 2012]

You made a lot of assumptions.

Just because our emotions are chemical reactions that impair our judgement, it doesn’t mean God’s emotions would necessarily be the same. If we are supposedly inferior physical creatures, then why would our inner workings be the same as God’s?

Also, perfection is a human made concept.

There is no such thing as perfection in the universe. The universe just is the way it is, in a constant state of change, no state being inherently “better” than another or “closer to perfection”

It just keeps going in a straight line, or perhaps it’s a cycle. We don’t know.
Just because the universe goes through changes it doesn’t disprove that a superior entity might exist.

 

[Deleted member 6380]

I came into the conclussion that the concept of an all-powerful god can't exist at all, and it's not because of injustice or evil in the world or any other bs.

Emotions are product of chemical-fueled impulses and their nature is to overtake the individual. This already rules out any religion whose god can be angered, can love or can be dissapointed for example, as a god should always remain in absolute control of themselves, which means zero emotion. Some strong emotions also usually come from the (in varying levels) unexpected, so that rules out omniscience either.

Speaking of which, any negative emotion comes from things not being like one would like. If a god is unsatisfied with the current state of things then that god is bound by time. Even if the god has the power to change the thing that dissatisfies them, the fact that there is even one instant in time in which things are not the right way means that this god experiences times in a linear way and is chained by it, otherwise unsatisfying event wouldn't even "take place". Being absolute perfection and creator of existence clashes directly with being tied to the rules of time, as an absolute god is supposed to exist outside of it.

The other reason are the concepts of desire and change. A desire comes, again, from something not being in a state that satisfies you. When I experience the desire to go from point A to point B, that means i'm not already in point B. That means i'm not all powerful, and, like in the former point, i'm bound by the power of time and there is a state of things (me being at point A) that unsatisfies me at a given time. At last, perfection is something (or a state of things) in which ANY change would result in worsening it. For a single entity to be the originator of existence, it should be absolute. Creating the universe we know is an act of change, which shouldn't happen if there was a perfection existing already. That change would then come from a desire (even if we can't comprehend the path/ways of god, any change always comes from a desire or at least a will) which brings us to desire = not perfect again. And the fact that there was no universe at some point and then there is one, again ends with the point of bound-by-time = no perfection/absolute power. In addition, removing time from the equation (because god shouldn't be bound by it) means that there is not a "thought process" going on in order to come up with the will for change, because thoughts and sentience go hand in hand with experiencing time, so god can't be sentient either, as sentience was developed as a means of adaptation and survival in the first place.

So, creation and time are not compatible with a single perfect entity being the all-and-everything. If anything "divine" exists, its definitely not the portrayal of a single sentient entity people usually do of god. This would only leave us with many-gods religions, since those do not need a single absolute entity, but allow for gods to not be perfect, be subjected to rules, and be compatible with time, emotion and change. But polytheist religions sound even more fairytale-like and ridiculous than the monotheistic ones tbh.

PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH (SWT)TO AN ATHEIST by Dr. Zakir Naik ​

CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST

Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him. My Muslim brothers may question me, "Zakir, why are you congratulating an atheist?" The reason that I am congratulating an atheist is because he agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed, ‘La ilaaha’ - meaning ‘there is no God’. So half my job is already done; now the only part left is ‘il lallah’ i.e. ‘BUT ALLAH’ which I shall do Insha Allah. With others (who are not atheists) I have to first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have and then put the correct concept of one true God.

LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD

My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods. If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam. Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse. (You may refer to my article, ‘Concept of God in Islam’, for more details)

QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE

The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all. Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God. If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it. SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR’AN: for details on this subject please refer to my book, ‘THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE – COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE?

THEORY OF PROBABILITY

In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%. A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %. Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct. At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30. The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60. Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%. The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.

CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN

The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the ‘CREATOR’, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is ‘God’, or more appropriate in the Arabic language, ‘ALLAH’.

QUR’AN IS A BOOK OF SIGNS AND NOT SCIENCE

Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ‘signs’, out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge. But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes ‘U’ turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.

SCIENCE IS ELIMINATING MODELS OF GOD BUT NOT GOD

Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small ‘g’ that is fake god) but God (with a capital ‘G’). Surah Fussilat: "Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?" [Al-Quran 41:53] Reference: http://www.irf.net/irf/comparativereligion/index.htm

 

[Golang]

funny enough Darwin was religious until he started learning more and realized how fucking atrociously brutal some animals are, and he came to the conclusion no god who is to be considered “merciful and loving” could of designed such abhorrent creations

I bet he was referring to ethnics, they're indeed brutal and disgusting creatures of nature

 

[Spartacus1-]

​ PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH (SWT)TO AN ATHEIST by Dr. Zakir Naik​

CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST

Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him. My Muslim brothers may question me, "Zakir, why are you congratulating an atheist?" The reason that I am congratulating an atheist is because he agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed, ‘La ilaaha’ - meaning ‘there is no God’. So half my job is already done; now the only part left is ‘il lallah’ i.e. ‘BUT ALLAH’ which I shall do Insha Allah. With others (who are not atheists) I have to first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have and then put the correct concept of one true God.

LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD

My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods. If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam. Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse. (You may refer to my article, ‘Concept of God in Islam’, for more details)

QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE

The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all. Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God. If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it. SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR’AN: for details on this subject please refer to my book, ‘THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE – COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE?

THEORY OF PROBABILITY

In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%. A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %. Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct. At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30. The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60. Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%. The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.

CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN

The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the ‘CREATOR’, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is ‘God’, or more appropriate in the Arabic language, ‘ALLAH’.

QUR’AN IS A BOOK OF SIGNS AND NOT SCIENCE

Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ‘signs’, out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge. But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes ‘U’ turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.

SCIENCE IS ELIMINATING MODELS OF GOD BUT NOT GOD

Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small ‘g’ that is fake god) but God (with a capital ‘G’). Surah Fussilat: "Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?" [Al-Quran 41:53] Reference: http://www.irf.net/irf/comparativereligion/index.htm

The site you linked doesn't work.

 

[Deleted member 6380]

The site you linked doesn't work.

Sorry about that idont know whats wrong with it hre is his website tho https://islamhouse.com/en/source/74715/

 

[Deleted member 9380]

Based

 

[Zyros]

@Toodlydood currently not at home but later will read and answer to your post, seems like an interesting read from another perspective

 

[Zyros]

As I promised, here is my response:

CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST
Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.
My Muslim brothers may question me, "Zakir, why are you congratulating an atheist?" The reason that I am congratulating an atheist is because he agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed, ‘La ilaaha’ - meaning ‘there is no God’. So half my job is already done; now the only part left is ‘il lallah’ i.e. ‘BUT ALLAH’ which I shall do Insha Allah. With others (who are not atheists) I have to first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have and then put the correct concept of one true God.

but didn't included the muslim who is muslim because of belonging to a muslim family. This part is a bit vage which is summarized to "yeah other gods are fake but not the muslim one and lets call it a day". Doesn't explain why the concept of the muslim God holds more truth than the other religions

LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD
My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.
If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.
Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.
(You may refer to my article, ‘Concept of God in Islam’, for more details)

I know that islam is not terrorists with bombs and knives and goats, but even if islam was/is a fair and merciful religion, doesn't prove it logical necesarily. Logic and brutality/cruelty ore not opposed and related terms. Logic is cold, objective and actually devoid of good or evil (good being an actual pacific chill religion while evil being represented by a brutal, discriminatory or beligerant one). It's like comparing apples or oranges. I mean, you can apply logic to a concept of divinity but this paragraph at least does not address it.

QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE
The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.
Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.
If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.

But not everything has to have a specific creator. Saying that knowing the innerworks of something needs its creator for the knowledge to be shared assumes everything has a conscious and dedicated designer. I don't see scriptures describing why or how neurons on animal brains work, or many natural phenomenoms. While everything has a "creator" to say it somehow, said creator can ve an event and not an entity (evolution, causality...). nobody "created" fire as its a natural phenomenom caused by eventuality, yet we managed to know its mechanims and innerworks without the need for knowledge about fire being provided by a manufacturer. This bit is a bit double edged too for God, as it reduces God to a man-made concept of means of creation: a designer or manufacturer.

THEORY OF PROBABILITY
In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.
A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.
Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.
At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.
The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.
Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.

The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.

But you assume any kind of possibility as having equal probabilty without taking into account common sense/logic, specially in the earth sape's guess. You have earth. You have a force which guides every downwards from living things perspective. With these two inmediately observable facts you only are left with flat or spherical, as all others don't make sense. Either its flat with an absolut up/down with that force being linear or spherical with a smooth transition between "up/down" and that force being "radial". Other shapes don't make sense for an habitable world, as why would that force shape the world in a cubical way for example? So being left with only 2 options that make sense, its not that astounding for a book to "guess" the correct one. It would be more impressive for the world to be a cube, and the Quran guessing so correctly when every apparent evidence points towards other answers. Another example of how the many-shaped worlds argument is flawed, lets see: humans age can vary and there is a probability of lifespan inside of which you can make a guess, but if you guess soemone's natural lifespan as 1 million years your guess will be always wrong because of common sense/limits.
Also many of those sicentific facts you mention were already explored by older civilizations than the Quran, such as living things having water as an essential component or earth being spherical. That knowledge had been already "cracked" by humanity.

CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN
The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the ‘CREATOR’, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is ‘God’, or more appropriate in the Arabic language, ‘ALLAH’.

This has the same answer as the "modern science" part: Not every information about something inner works needs to come from a manufacturer. Also again many of these scientific facts were already know by humanity by the time the Quran was created/born

QUR’AN IS A BOOK OF SIGNS AND NOT SCIENCE
Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ‘signs’, out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.
But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes ‘U’ turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.

But the yard stick does not need to be superior to the thing it discovers or measures. You can't also mix ethics with science and also making the "ultimate yardstick" different to scientific knowledge (as in being the ultimate measurement tool) makes it stop being a measurement tool as in that's scientific territory and not divine one, so it stops being the yardstick. And again, an impressive thing would be quran predicting actual modern scientific knowledge that we are just discovering now, not knowledge already held by other civilizations before quran birth. The discovery or even creation fo something does not need to come from a superior medium. In fact look at whats being said about self learning AI and singularity: a potential AI far superior to what we are and have now can be created by us, who only have lesser yardsticks than whats being created at our disposal

SCIENCE IS ELIMINATING MODELS OF GOD BUT NOT GOD
Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small ‘g’ that is fake god) but God (with a capital ‘G’).
Surah Fussilat:
"Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"

But the "god" that scientists are referring to is nothing related to the religions addressed here, its an entirely different concept. The second part translates to "yeah other gods can be scrutinized and disproven trough the magnifying glass of science but our one God is the real one because I say so". You have to hold every model of god to the same standards, and if you topple the christian monotheistic god model, you are toppling the muslim one too with the same hammer hit probably. This is also similar to the very first point in this post too.

 

[Zyros]

You made a lot of assumptions.

Just because our emotions are chemical reactions that impair our judgement, it doesn’t mean God’s emotions would necessarily be the same. If we are supposedly inferior physical creatures, then why would our inner workings be the same as God’s?

The chemical reactions bit is the least important as why I said that emotions and god are incompatible concepts. No matter if its chemical reactions or cosmic energies, ANGER is a sign something's not to your liking at some point on time as I said. Something not to your liking: not omnipotent as you lack a grasp on time, or not omniscient as anger comes mostly from unexpected bad outcomes or dissapointment.

Also, perfection is a human made concept.
There is no such thing as perfection in the universe. The universe just is the way it is, in a constant state of change, no state being inherently “better” than another or “closer to perfection”

It's spammed everywhere that god is absolute and all there is. If you deny a concept of perfection in bias of a constant change of things and no state holding a higher objective value, you are actually denying divinity, god and "almightyness"

It just keeps going in a straight line, or perhaps it’s a cycle. We don’t know.

Just because the universe goes through changes it doesn’t disprove that a superior entity might exist.

Which, even if something "out there" exists, by no means has a consciousness, will, let alone a personality or ego measurable by human minds and reductible to human traits (like anger or love)

 

[Deleted member 2012]

You’re not debunking that there might be a God out there, you’re debunking the simplistic version of a God presented to us by mainstream religion. I dont think God has to be a specific way.

even if something "out there" exists, by no means has a consciousness, will, let alone a personality or ego

We don’t know that.

I agree that as far we know, it doesn’t look like there is anything. But there is a lot we don’t know about the universe.

We can only perceive the world through 5 simplistic senses. There might be a whole other plane of existence out of their reach.

That’s why I’m agnostic.

 

[Lasko123]

I came into the conclussion that the concept of an all-powerful god can't exist at all, and it's not because of injustice or evil in the world or any other bs.

Emotions are product of chemical-fueled impulses and their nature is to overtake the individual. This already rules out any religion whose god can be angered, can love or can be dissapointed for example, as a god should always remain in absolute control of themselves, which means zero emotion. Some strong emotions also usually come from the (in varying levels) unexpected, so that rules out omniscience either.

Speaking of which, any negative emotion comes from things not being like one would like. If a god is unsatisfied with the current state of things then that god is bound by time. Even if the god has the power to change the thing that dissatisfies them, the fact that there is even one instant in time in which things are not the right way means that this god experiences times in a linear way and is chained by it, otherwise unsatisfying event wouldn't even "take place". Being absolute perfection and creator of existence clashes directly with being tied to the rules of time, as an absolute god is supposed to exist outside of it.

The other reason are the concepts of desire and change. A desire comes, again, from something not being in a state that satisfies you. When I experience the desire to go from point A to point B, that means i'm not already in point B. That means i'm not all powerful, and, like in the former point, i'm bound by the power of time and there is a state of things (me being at point A) that unsatisfies me at a given time. At last, perfection is something (or a state of things) in which ANY change would result in worsening it. For a single entity to be the originator of existence, it should be absolute. Creating the universe we know is an act of change, which shouldn't happen if there was a perfection existing already. That change would then come from a desire (even if we can't comprehend the path/ways of god, any change always comes from a desire or at least a will) which brings us to desire = not perfect again. And the fact that there was no universe at some point and then there is one, again ends with the point of bound-by-time = no perfection/absolute power. In addition, removing time from the equation (because god shouldn't be bound by it) means that there is not a "thought process" going on in order to come up with the will for change, because thoughts and sentience go hand in hand with experiencing time, so god can't be sentient either, as sentience was developed as a means of adaptation and survival in the first place.

So, creation and time are not compatible with a single perfect entity being the all-and-everything. If anything "divine" exists, its definitely not the portrayal of a single sentient entity people usually do of god. This would only leave us with many-gods religions, since those do not need a single absolute entity, but allow for gods to not be perfect, be subjected to rules, and be compatible with time, emotion and change. But polytheist religions sound even more fairytale-like and ridiculous than the monotheistic ones tbh.

God is slow to anger.Of course god would get upset if we aren't doing the right thing.Just because he is god doesnt mean he cant have emotions.To us in the physical time exists,but in the supernatural time doesnt exist.Time is beginning present and end at the same.We are not perfect but god is perfect.Gods desire is that all to be saved.God is the universe.God is everything and nothing at the same time even before he created the heavens and earth.

 

[Lasko123]

there is never going to be a way to debunk or confirm god

a god probably does exist but not the ones currently believed like Christianity and Islam

funny enough Darwin was religious until he started learning more and realized how fucking atrociously brutal some animals are, and he came to the conclusion no god who is to be considered “merciful and loving” could of designed such abhorrent creations

an example of an animal he speaks of is a certain type of wasp that paralyzes a caterpillar and lays its eggs in a specific place that the baby wasps can devour the live caterpillar but will not kill it and feed off it for literal weeks while it is alive and paralyzed, suffering the entire time

I completely agree with Darwin on that sentiment, no such loving god exists, but shit like the Big Bang (more specifically the specific timing it happened) requires a god

In science every action has a cause, why did the Big Bang take place 14 billion years ago instead of 100 trillion trillion years? there had to be a cause

but then you get into the issue of who created god and get caught up in the same ever ending paradox

it really is mind boggling to think about, it is the only mystery in my life that I have lived in such ignorance about, but really everyone does, 8 billion people and no one can find an answer

fascinating really

Animals were never meant to be atrocious.Animals got corrupted by satan.Animals were supposed to be peaceful and live with us.

 

[Lasko123]

time is simply the potential to change, god had to of existed in some sort of time to manifest change in some sort of way to make the universe


the only answer to the paradox is that the universe “self configured” god himself, but that leads to the same problem again, why didn’t the univserse make a god 100 trillion trillion years ago, what specifically triggered it to happen when it did

The world is only about 6000 years old.God created the heavens earth Angel's for his pleasure.Maybe God was lonely

 

[Lasko123]

God's own omnipotence is a paradox in itself, I'm talking about the Abrahamic gods by the way.

Apparently they're all-powerful and know all but if that's so then that must mean they can predict the future and so that means the future is a set time and place thus dismantling the notion of free will.

Moreover, if God can predict the future then it means that he knows some people are simply destined to go to hell and can not be "saved." That is not a loving God.

Yes he knows but god is merciful.I believe if they weren't saved,they will suffer for they're sins and then allowed in heaven
Peter 4:6
For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

 

[Lasko123]

It came from you but if God knew you were going to make it then that means it was going to happen regardless of anything, your thoughts etc etc. He knows you'll make it before it even happened so that means even if you didn't think about it, it will happen. Get it?


There is a Christian saying that "God knew you before you were born" and that itself just proves what im saying.

God knew us before because I believe we were Angels that sinned and became sperm as punishment

 

[6’1cel]

I came into the conclussion that the concept of an all-powerful god can't exist at all, and it's not because of injustice or evil in the world or any other bs.

Emotions are product of chemical-fueled impulses and their nature is to overtake the individual. This already rules out any religion whose god can be angered, can love or can be dissapointed for example, as a god should always remain in absolute control of themselves, which means zero emotion. Some strong emotions also usually come from the (in varying levels) unexpected, so that rules out omniscience either.

Speaking of which, any negative emotion comes from things not being like one would like. If a god is unsatisfied with the current state of things then that god is bound by time. Even if the god has the power to change the thing that dissatisfies them, the fact that there is even one instant in time in which things are not the right way means that this god experiences times in a linear way and is chained by it, otherwise unsatisfying event wouldn't even "take place". Being absolute perfection and creator of existence clashes directly with being tied to the rules of time, as an absolute god is supposed to exist outside of it.

The other reason are the concepts of desire and change. A desire comes, again, from something not being in a state that satisfies you. When I experience the desire to go from point A to point B, that means i'm not already in point B. That means i'm not all powerful, and, like in the former point, i'm bound by the power of time and there is a state of things (me being at point A) that unsatisfies me at a given time. At last, perfection is something (or a state of things) in which ANY change would result in worsening it. For a single entity to be the originator of existence, it should be absolute. Creating the universe we know is an act of change, which shouldn't happen if there was a perfection existing already. That change would then come from a desire (even if we can't comprehend the path/ways of god, any change always comes from a desire or at least a will) which brings us to desire = not perfect again. And the fact that there was no universe at some point and then there is one, again ends with the point of bound-by-time = no perfection/absolute power. In addition, removing time from the equation (because god shouldn't be bound by it) means that there is not a "thought process" going on in order to come up with the will for change, because thoughts and sentience go hand in hand with experiencing time, so god can't be sentient either, as sentience was developed as a means of adaptation and survival in the first place.

So, creation and time are not compatible with a single perfect entity being the all-and-everything. If anything "divine" exists, its definitely not the portrayal of a single sentient entity people usually do of god. This would only leave us with many-gods religions, since those do not need a single absolute entity, but allow for gods to not be perfect, be subjected to rules, and be compatible with time, emotion and change. But polytheist religions sound even more fairytale-like and ridiculous than the monotheistic ones tbh.

 

[Lasko123]

The pre-determinist view that no matter what you do it was already set in stone because time is linear all that will happen has already happened. See if I say to myself "I have a big dick because I'm going to use an extender" it has already happened, just in another place and time it's just awaiting it's time to reveal itself. How does this relate to free will? Well if I make a choice and it has a certain outcome and I can't change that outcome is it really free will? It gets more complicated. All the choices I make will have an outcome to which I cant change and that to me is not having free will.

There's also genetics. I didn't choose my genetics nor did I choose to be born, I didn't choose what interests I have, I didn't choose the environment I'm in and even if I chose a certain job it was just a product of the environment and genetics I didn't choose to have and it will only produce an outcome I can't change.

We have free will but it's true what is going to happen in the future has already happened but to us in the physical it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Zyros]

We have free will but it's true what is going to happen in the future has already happened but to us in the physical it hasn't happened yet.

this is a contradiction

 

[Zyros]

God is slow to anger. (can be angered)

god is perfect.

Choose one

Gods desire is that all to be saved.

A desire comes from unfulfillment at a certain point of time, and the "desire for all to be saved" can also fail for the souls codemned to hell or purgatory, so we are too back at anger/dissapointment.

Again choose one: a being who desires and can be dissapointed by things that don't go as they wish or one that is perfect.

 

[Feminineboi]

What you just described is similar to what is called "the crux of theology". While contradictory, this in no way proves an absence of a God, but rather proves if there is a God (speaking specifically of the Judeo-Christian God), he works in confusing and contradictory ways that one cannot comprehend. Most Christians don't believe this is a good enough reason not to believe, however. For many believe God works in incomprehensible/confusing ways.

Additionally,
many times the bible mentions both Jesus AND God angered and upset;

Christianity in no way teaches anger and emotions are sins.
One story shows Jesus himself was tempted with "every known sin", by Satan himself yet did not give into them.
Emotions and temptations are absolutely not sins, but acting on them are.

I suggest before commenting on all religions in general then attempting to "debunk" them as a whole, you should know what the actual religions believe and teach.

Extremely low IQ post

 

[Lasko123]

this is a contradiction

No we aren't mindless robots that just follows orders.

 

[Zyros]

What you just described is similar to what is called "the crux of theology". While contradictory, this in no way proves an absence of a God, but rather proves if there is a God (speaking specifically of the Judeo-Christian God), he works in confusing and contradictory ways that one cannot comprehend. Most Christians don't believe this is a good enough reason not to believe, however. For many believe God works in incomprehensible/confusing ways.

Additionally,
many times the bible mentions both Jesus AND God angered and upset;

Christianity in no way teaches anger and emotions are sins.
One story shows Jesus himself was tempted with "every known sin", by Satan himself yet did not give into them.
Emotions and temptations are absolutely not sins, but acting on them are.

I suggest before commenting on all religions in general then attempting to "debunk" them as a whole, you should know what the actual religions believe and teach.

Extremely low IQ post

There is a difference between some being that is so above us that their deeds seem incomprehensible to us, and a depiction of god that is so incredibly dumbed down (so older societies could feel like they at least understood something) that he just looks like yet another human but with "power" more than some entity playing 4D chess. Most religions are the second, pretending to disguise as the first.

 

[Lasko123]

Choose one



A desire comes from unfulfillment at a certain point of time, and the "desire for all to be saved" can also fail for the souls codemned to hell or purgatory, so we are too back at anger/dissapointment.

Again choose one: a being who desires and can be dissapointed by things that don't go as they wish or one that is perfect.

He is both at the same time because he's god

 

[Zyros]

No we aren't mindless robots that just follows orders.

Free will is not about following orders, its not something so specific. its about having true ability of coice.

 

[Lasko123]

Free will is not about following orders, its not something so specific. its about having true ability of coice.

You made the choice to reply to me.You have free will.Did god make you reply or did you do it by your own will

 

[Feminineboi]

There is a difference between some being that is so above us that their deeds seem incomprehensible to us, and a depiction of god that is so incredibly dumbed down (so older societies could feel like they at least understood something) that he just looks like yet another human but with "power" more than some entity playing 4D chess. Most religions are the second, pretending to disguise as the first.

What marks a "dumbed-down" god as opposed to what marks a god that is "so above us"?

 

[Zyros]

What marks a "dumbed-down" god as opposed to what marks a god that is "so above us"?

That a "supposed to have incomprehensible ways" god wouldn't even be able to be related to us at all. A real god would seem to us more like a kind of machine or a force than a god with as much "human personality" as major religions depict, let alone emotions like anger, jealousy or dissapointment. What they do is paint god as some kind of powered buddy so people can relate and understand to learn the religion but when true questions arise, just slap a "god works in mysterious ways" sticker. Hell even just non divide higher dimensional beings would be so complex and ununderstanable that writing a book about them (let alone some "rules of life" book as the holy scriptures with such oddly specific laws and depictions of the being behavior) would be outright impossible. Not "we can describe them but they work in complex ways", we wouldn't even be able to begin writing or documenting anything at all about them or elaborate a religion as concrete and defined as the ones we talk about.

In few words, a real above us god woulnd't be reduced to such an specific worldview as to, for example, have laws in regard to sexuality or, even worse, institutions like marriage.

 

[Feminineboi]

That a "supposed to have incomprehensible ways" god wouldn't even be able to be related to us at all. A real god would seem to us more like a kind of machine or a force than a god with as much "human personality" as major religions depict, let alone emotions like anger, jealousy or dissapointment. What they do is paint god as some kind of powered buddy so people can relate and understand to learn the religion but when true questions arise, just slap a "god works in mysterious ways" sticker. Hell even just non divide higher dimensional beings would be so complex and ununderstanable that writing a book about them (let alone some "rules of life" book as the holy scriptures with such oddly specific laws and depictions of the being behavior) would be outright impossible. Not "we can describe them but they work in complex ways", we wouldn't even be able to begin writing or documenting anything at all about them.

In few words, a real above us god woulnd't be reduced to such an specific worldview as to, for example, have laws in regard to sexuality or, even worse, institutions like marriage.

I don't really think it's up to you to decide what a real god would do

 

[Zyros]

I don't really think it's up to you to decide what a real god would do

Exactly. What a real god would do or behave would be IMPOSSIBLE to understand, not difficult or hard. And reducing god to some being that is bound by time, feels sadness, anger, and rewards or punishes is a clear sign of the depicted god being just the figurehead of a "life instruction book" for older times people, and a "don't worry" book for people who have existential fear.

It's not up to me to delimit what a real god would be, so much less up to religious people to paint emotions, names, traditions, actions and even personalities clearly derived from human worldview into a god

 

[Feminineboi]

Exactly. What a real god would do or behave would be IMPOSSIBLE to understand, not difficult or hard. And reducing god to some being that is bound by time, feels sadness, anger, and rewards or punishes is a clear sign of the depicted god being just the figurehead of a "life instruction book" for older times people, and a "don't worry" book for people who have existential fear.

It's not up to me to delimit what a real god would be, so much less up to religious people to paint emotions, names, traditions, actions and even personalities clearly derived from human worldview into a god

True Christians dont believe it's up to their own word to dictate God's capabilities either, they dont believe he is bound by any of our nature's laws

To put it shortly

 

[Zyros]

True Christians dont believe it's up to their own word to dictate God's capabilities either, they dont believe he is bound by any of our nature's laws

if he can be dissapointed (unexpected bad event happened) or he follows a train of thought or he acts in any way at different points of time, that god is bound by time.

 

[Deleted member 4612]

you're using science of a world created by a being who was supposedly beyond the laws of nature

not saying he for sure exists. but i dont think you can ever fully debunk him

 

[Feminineboi]

if he can be dissapointed (unexpected bad event happened) or he follows a train of thought or he acts in any way at different points of time, that god is bound by time.

Time isn't our only scientific "law" btw, and your logic doesn't disprove His possible ability to move through time

You can't prove to everyone he doesn't exist, just as you can't prove he does

 

[Deleted member 5969]

Being perfect means having no emotions? What?

 

[Zyros]

Being perfect means having no emotions? What?

read more carefully, it is explained in detail. but yes, absolute perfection would mean no emotions

 

[Deleted member 5969]

read more carefully, it is explained in detail. but yes, absolute perfection would mean no emotions

That makes zero sense.
Someone kills your whole family and you cry. That's bad????

 

[Zyros]

That makes zero sense.
Someone kills your whole family and you cry. That's bad????

what does this even have in relation to the topic? Its not bad per se, but its imperfect. perfection doesnt care about morality, nor good nor evil. Anyway, your example is completely out of context.

 

[Deleted member 5969]

what does this even have in relation to the topic? Its not bad per se, but its imperfect. perfection doesnt care about morality, nor good nor evil. Anyway, your example is completely out of context.

No its not
You say when people murder God sons and he gets angry
He is imperfect
Thats so stupid

 

[Zyros]

No its not
You say when people murder God sons and he gets angry
He is imperfect
Thats so stupid

did you even read the post? If a god existed we shouldnt even have been created in the first place. Anger comes from frustration because of things not going as you expected. Events outside your control just scream non-omnipotence and definitely non-omniscience. A perfect absolute being woudlnt even experience anything happening beyond their expectations. At this point im just repeating the OP.